Sharing individual level data from observational studies and clinical trials: a perspective from NHLBI

There are numerous benefits to the research community from data sharing, and yet the open sharing of participant level data is not without potential pitfalls. In addition to the scientific community, the interests of study participants who volunteered their data must be considered, along with the interests of study investigators who expend a substantial amount of effort into the design, conduct, and analytical plans for the study. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) has developed a data-sharing protocol focused on balancing the interests of study participants, study investigators, and the research community with independent oversight by the NHLBI IRB. The data repository presently includes individual level data on more than 560,000 participants from 100 Institute-supported clinical trials and observational studies.

[1]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Strengthening and opening up health research by sharing our raw data. , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[2]  Bradley Malin,et al.  Technical and Policy Approaches to Balancing Patient Privacy and Data Sharing in Clinical and Translational Research , 2010, Journal of Investigative Medicine.

[3]  Bradley Malin,et al.  Evaluating re-identification risks with respect to the HIPAA privacy rule , 2010, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[4]  B. Coller,et al.  Assessing Research Participants’ Perceptions of their Clinical Research Experiences , 2011, Clinical and translational science.

[5]  A. Vickers.  Whose data set is it anyway? Sharing raw data from randomized trials , 2006, Trials.

[6]  Peter C Gøtzsche,et al.  Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it , 2011, Trials.

[7]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Open science and data sharing in clinical research: basing informed decisions on the totality of the evidence. , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[8]  B. Psaty,et al.  A new era of cardiovascular disease epidemiology. , 2007, JAMA.

[9]  John A Spertus,et al.  The double-edged sword of open access to research data. , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.

[10]  V. Entwistle,et al.  Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self , 2010, Trials.

[11]  Neil Pearce,et al.  Data sharing: not as simple as it seems , 2011, Environmental health : a global access science source.

[12]  F. Dominici,et al.  Reproducible epidemiologic research. , 2006, American journal of epidemiology.

[13]  Cary P Gross,et al.  The importance of clinical trial data sharing: toward more open science. , 2012, Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes.