Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 9/2019

01-09-2019 | Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence

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

Authors: Maria Bosserdt, Bernd Hamm, Marc Dewey

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 9/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the current situation and future directions of clinical trials and data sharing in radiology.

Methods

This survey was conducted between July and September 2018 among European heads of imaging departments and speakers at the Clinical Trials in Radiology sessions at ECR 2015–2018. The survey was approved by the ESR research committee, was administered online, and chi-square tests were used.

Results

The overall response rate was 29% (132/460). Responses were received from institutions in 29 countries. These institutions reported having conducted 429 trials, leading to 332 publications, of which 43% were first and 44% were last authorships by those institutions. For future trials, 98% of respondents (93/95) said they would be interested in sharing data, although only 34% had shared data already (23/68, p < 0.001). The major barriers to data sharing were data protection (78%, 74/95), ethical issues (49%, 47/95), and the lack of a data sharing platform (49%, 47/95). Of the respondents, 89% believed a platform would facilitate data sharing (85/95 vs. 10/95 did not, p < 0.001) and should offer easy data uploading (74%, 70/95), data safety (66%, 63/95), easy communication between providers and re-users (62%, 59/95), and data access policies (56%, 53/95).

Conclusion

A considerable number of imaging trials are being performed and published by radiologists in Europe whilst data sharing is hardly taking place, despite great interest. This is most likely due to data protection and ethical issues, as well as the absence of a data sharing platform.

Key Points

• Radiologists have performed a considerable number of more than 400 imaging trials in the last 5 years.
• Although only 34% of institutions had shared trial data already, 98% are interested in doing so.
• Major data sharing barriers are ethics, data protection, and the absence of a sharing platform.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ, Di Leo G, Krestin GP (2010) Evidence-based radiology: why and how? Eur Radiol 20:1–15CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ, Di Leo G, Krestin GP (2010) Evidence-based radiology: why and how? Eur Radiol 20:1–15CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Kruskal JB, Larson DB (2018) Strategies for radiology to thrive in the value era. Radiology 289:3–7CrossRefPubMed Kruskal JB, Larson DB (2018) Strategies for radiology to thrive in the value era. Radiology 289:3–7CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Sardanelli F, Ali M, Hunink MG, Houssami N, Sconfienza LM, Di Leo G (2018) To share or not to share? Expected pros and cons of data sharing in radiological research. Eur Radiol 28:2328–2335CrossRefPubMed Sardanelli F, Ali M, Hunink MG, Houssami N, Sconfienza LM, Di Leo G (2018) To share or not to share? Expected pros and cons of data sharing in radiological research. Eur Radiol 28:2328–2335CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P et al (2018) Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in the BMJ and PLOS medicine. BMJ 360:k400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P et al (2018) Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in the BMJ and PLOS medicine. BMJ 360:k400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr (2009) Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 301:831–841CrossRefPubMed Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr (2009) Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 301:831–841CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2015). ESR position paper on imaging biobanks. Insights Imaging 6:403–410 European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2015). ESR position paper on imaging biobanks. Insights Imaging 6:403–410
12.
go back to reference European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2017). The new EU General Data Protection Regulation: what the radiologist should know. Insights Imaging 8:295–299 European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2017). The new EU General Data Protection Regulation: what the radiologist should know. Insights Imaging 8:295–299
13.
go back to reference Hricak H (2018) 2016 new horizons lecture: beyond imaging-radiology of tomorrow. Radiology 286:764–775CrossRefPubMed Hricak H (2018) 2016 new horizons lecture: beyond imaging-radiology of tomorrow. Radiology 286:764–775CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Pesapane F, Codari M, Sardanelli F (2018) Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur Radiol Exp 2:35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pesapane F, Codari M, Sardanelli F (2018) Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur Radiol Exp 2:35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
go back to reference Bierer BE, Li R, Barnes M, Sim I (2016) A global, neutral platform for sharing trial data. N Engl J Med 374:2411–2413CrossRefPubMed Bierer BE, Li R, Barnes M, Sim I (2016) A global, neutral platform for sharing trial data. N Engl J Med 374:2411–2413CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
go back to reference Haug CJ (2017) Whose data are they anyway? Can a patient perspective advance the data-sharing debate? N Engl J Med 376:2203–2205CrossRefPubMed Haug CJ (2017) Whose data are they anyway? Can a patient perspective advance the data-sharing debate? N Engl J Med 376:2203–2205CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Ohmann C, Banzi R, Canham S et al (2017) Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations. BMJ Open 7:e018647CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Ohmann C, Banzi R, Canham S et al (2017) Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations. BMJ Open 7:e018647CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I et al (2017) What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet 389:1006–1007CrossRefPubMed Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I et al (2017) What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet 389:1006–1007CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Leung KY, van der Lijn F, Vrooman HA, Sturkenboom MC, Niessen WJ (2015) IT infrastructure to support the secondary use of routinely acquired clinical imaging data for research. Neuroinformatics 13:65–81CrossRefPubMed Leung KY, van der Lijn F, Vrooman HA, Sturkenboom MC, Niessen WJ (2015) IT infrastructure to support the secondary use of routinely acquired clinical imaging data for research. Neuroinformatics 13:65–81CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Clinical trials in radiology and data sharing: results from a survey of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) research committee
Authors
Maria Bosserdt
Bernd Hamm
Marc Dewey
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 9/2019
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06105-y

Other articles of this Issue 9/2019

European Radiology 9/2019 Go to the issue