Clinical trials in radiology and data sharing: results from a survey of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) research committee

Bosserdt, Maria; Hamm, Bernd; Dewey, Marc

doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06105-y

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the data shared by these 23 institutions, at least 44 additional original works have been published. (22)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis for Key Indicators of Reproducibility in Radiology

Wright

Nolan

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It remains unexamined whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze published radiology literature for the presence or absence of key indicators of reproducibility. Methods: This cross-sectional, retrospective study was performed by conducting a search of the National Library of Medicine to identify publications contained within journals in the field of Radiology. Journals that were not written in English or MEDLINE indexed were excluded from the analysis. Studies published from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018 were used to generate a random list of 300 publications for this meta-analysis. A pilot-tested, Google form was used to evaluate key indicators of reproducibility in the queried publications. Results: Our initial search returned 295,543 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 294 met the inclusion criteria. Among the empirical publications, 5.6% contained a data availability statement (11/195, 95% CI: 3.0-8.3), 0.51% provided clearly documented raw data (1/195), 12.0% provided a materials availability statement (23/191, 8.4-15.7), none provided analysis scripts, 4.1% provided a preregistration statement (8/195, 1.9-6.3), 2.1% provided a protocol statement (4/195, 0.4-3.7), and 3.6% were preregistered (7/195, 1.5-5.7). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that key indicators of reproducibility are missing in the field of radiology. Thus, the ability to reproduce radiological studies may be problematic and may have potential clinical implications.

show abstract

“…From the data shared by these 23 institutions, at least 44 additional original works have been published. (22)…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Analysis for Key Indicators of Reproducibility in Radiology

Wright

Nolan

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A recent survey by the European Society of Radiology research committee found that 98% of respondents would be interested in sharing data, yet only 23 institutions (34%) had previously shared clinical trial data. From the data shared by these 23 institutions, at least 44 additional original works have been published [21].…”

Section: Fundingmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of key indicators of reproducibility in radiology

Wright

Nolan

et al. 2020

Insights Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Given the central role of radiology in patient care, it is important that radiological research is grounded in reproducible science. It is unclear whether there is a lack of reproducibility or transparency in radiologic research. Purpose: To analyze published radiology literature for the presence or lack of key indicators of reproducibility. Methods: This cross-sectional retrospective study was performed by conducting a search of the National Library of Medicine (NLM) for publications contained within journals in the field of radiology. Our inclusion criteria were being MEDLINE indexed, written in English, and published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 300 publications for this study. A pilot-tested Google form was used to record information from the publications regarding indicators of reproducibility. Following peer-review, we extracted data from an additional 200 publications in an attempt to reproduce our initial results. The additional 200 publications were selected from the list of initially randomized publications. Results: Our initial search returned 295,543 records, from which 300 were randomly selected for analysis. Of these 300 records, 294 met inclusion criteria and 6 did not. Among the empirical publications, 5.6% (11/195, [3.0-8.3]) contained a data availability statement, 0.51% (1/195) provided clear documented raw data, 12.0% (23/191, [8.4-15.7]) provided a materials availability statement, 0% provided analysis scripts, 4.1% (8/195, [1.9-6.3]) provided a preregistration statement, 2.1% (4/195, [0.4-3.7]) provided a protocol statement, and 3.6% (7/195, [1.5-5.7]) were preregistered. The validation study of the 5 key indicators of reproducibility-availability of data, materials, protocols, analysis scripts, and pre-registration-resulted in 2 indicators (availability of protocols and analysis scripts) being reproduced, as they fell within the 95% confidence intervals for the proportions from the original sample. However, materials' availability and pre-registration proportions from the validation sample were lower than what was found in the original sample. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate key indicators of reproducibility are missing in the field of radiology. Thus, the ability to reproduce studies contained in radiology publications may be problematic and may have potential clinical implications.

show abstract

“…In a survey targeting European heads of imaging departments and speakers at the clinical trials in radiology sessions (July–September 2018), the response rate was 132/460 (29%). 63 Responses were received from institutions in 29 countries, reporting 429 clinical trials. For future trials, 98% of respondents (93/95) said they would be interested in sharing data, although only 34% had already shared data (23/68).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.Eligibility criteriaAll studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.Sources of evidenceWe searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.Charting methodsTwo reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.Results93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.ConclusionsThere is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.

show abstract

Clinical trials in radiology and data sharing: results from a survey of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) research committee

Cited by 10 publications

References 22 publications

An Analysis for Key Indicators of Reproducibility in Radiology

An Analysis for Key Indicators of Reproducibility in Radiology

An analysis of key indicators of reproducibility in radiology

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About