Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 6/2018

01-06-2018 | Radiological Education

To share or not to share? Expected pros and cons of data sharing in radiological research

Authors: Francesco Sardanelli, Marco Alì, Myriam G. Hunink, Nehmat Houssami, Luca M. Sconfienza, Giovanni Di Leo

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

The aims of this paper are to illustrate the trend towards data sharing, i.e. the regulated availability of the original patient-level data obtained during a study, and to discuss the expected advantages (pros) and disadvantages (cons) of data sharing in radiological research. Expected pros include the potential for verification of original results with alternative or supplementary analyses (including estimation of reproducibility), advancement of knowledge by providing new results by testing new hypotheses (not explored by the original authors) on pre-existing databases, larger scale analyses based on individual-patient data, enhanced multidisciplinary cooperation, reduced publication of false studies, improved clinical practice, and reduced cost and time for clinical research. Expected cons are outlined as the risk that the original authors could not exploit the entire potential of the data they obtained, possible failures in patients’ privacy protection, technical barriers such as the lack of standard formats, and possible data misinterpretation. Finally, open issues regarding data ownership, the role of individual patients, advocacy groups and funding institutions in decision making about sharing of data and images are discussed.

Key Points

• Regulated availability of patient-level data of published clinical studies (data-sharing) is expected.
• Expected benefits include verification/advancement of knowledge, reduced cost/time of research, clinical improvement.
• Potential drawbacks include faults in patients’ identity protection and data misinterpretation.
Literature
1.
2.
Boulton G, Rawlins M, Vallance P, Walport M (2011) Science as a public enterprise: the case for open data. Lancet 377:1633–1635CrossRefPubMed
3.
Walport M, Brest P (2011) Sharing research data to improve public health. Lancet (London, England) 377:537–539CrossRef
4.
Taichman DB, Sahni P, Pinborg A et al (2017) Data sharing statements for clinical trials—A requirement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. N Engl J Med 376:2277–2279CrossRefPubMed
5.
Sconfienza LM, Sardanelli F (2013) Radiological journals in the online world: should we think open? Eur Radiol 23:1175–1177CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
Collins FS, Tabak LA (2014) Policy: NIH plans to enhance reproducibility. Nature 505:612–613
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Krumholz HM, Waldstreicher J (2016) The Yale Open Data Access (YODA) project — A mechanism for data sharing. N Engl J Med 375:403–405
44.
45.
Academic Research Organization Consortium for Continuing Evaluation of Scientific Studies--Cardiovascular (ACCESS CV), Patel MR, Armstrong PW, Bhatt DL et al (2016) Sharing data from cardiovascular clinical trials—A Proposal. N Engl J Med 375:407–409CrossRef
46.
Gillies RJ, Kinahan PE, Hricak H (2016) Radiomics: images are more than pictures, they are data. Radiology 278:563–577CrossRefPubMed
47.
Herrick R, Horton W, Olsen T et al (2016) NeuroImage XNAT central: open sourcing imaging research data. NeuroImage 124:1093–1096CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Clark K, Vendt B, Smith K et al (2013) The Cancer Imaging Archive (TCIA): maintaining and operating a public information repository. J Digit Imaging 26:1045–1057CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
50.
Armato SG, McLennan G, Bidaut L et al (2011) The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI): a completed reference database of lung nodules on CT scans. Med Phys 38:915–931CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Chen Y, Elenee Argentinis JD, Weber G (2016) IBM Watson: how cognitive computing can be applied to big data challenges in life sciences research. Clin Ther 38:688–701CrossRefPubMed
52.
Loder E (2013) Sharing data from clinical trials: where we are and what lies ahead. BMJ 347:f4794–f4794CrossRefPubMed
53.
Mello MM, Francer JK, Wilenzick M et al (2013) Preparing for responsible sharing of clinical trial data. N Engl J Med 369:1651–1658CrossRefPubMed
54.
Anderson BJ, Merry AF (2009) Data sharing for pharmacokinetic studies. Paediatr Anaesth 19:1005–1010CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Berlin JA, Morris S, Rockhold F et al (2014) Bumps and bridges on the road to responsible sharing of clinical trial data. Clin Trials 11:7–12CrossRefPubMed
57.
Peat G, Riley RD, Croft P et al (2014) Improving the transparency of prognosis research: the role of reporting, data sharing, registration, and protocols. PLoS Med 11:e1001671CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
58.
59.
Lee ES, McDonald DW, Anderson N, Tarczy-Hornoch P (2009) Incorporating collaboratory concepts into informatics in support of translational interdisciplinary biomedical research. Int J Med Inform 78:10–21CrossRefPubMed
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Kasenda B, von Elm E, You J et al (2014) Prevalence, characteristics, and publication of discontinued randomized trials. JAMA 311:1045–1051CrossRefPubMed
65.
Clarke MJ, Stewart LA (1997) Meta-analyses using individual patient data. J Eval Clin Pract 3:207–212CrossRefPubMed
66.
Phi X-A, Houssami N, Obdeijn I-M et al (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging improves breast screening sensitivity in BRCA mutation carriers age ≥50 years: evidence from an individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 33:349–356CrossRefPubMed
67.
Marinovich ML, Macaskill P, Irwig L et al (2015) Agreement between MRI and pathologic breast tumor size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and comparison with alternative tests: individual patient data meta-analysis. BMC Cancer 15:662CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
68.
69.
Qi X, Deng H, Guo X (2017) Characteristics of retractions related to faked peer reviews: an overview. Postgrad Med J 93:499–503
70.
71.
Zarin DA (2013) Participant-level data and the new frontier in trial transparency. N Engl J Med 369:468–469CrossRefPubMed
72.
Farrar JT, Troxel AB, Haynes K et al (2014) Effect of variability in the 7-day baseline pain diary on the assay sensitivity of neuropathic pain randomized clinical trials: An ACTTION study. Pain 155:1622–1631CrossRefPubMed
73.
Gabler NB, French B, Strom BL et al (2012) Validation of 6-minute walk distance as a surrogate end point in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials. Circulation 126:349–356CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
74.
Gabler NB, French B, Strom BL et al (2012) Race and sex differences in response to endothelin receptor antagonists for pulmonary arterial hypertension. Chest 141:20–26CrossRefPubMed
75.
Bierer BE, Crosas M, Pierce HH (2017) Data authorship as an incentive to data sharing. N Engl J Med 376:1684–1687CrossRefPubMed
76.
Prasser F, Bild R, Kuhn KA (2016) A generic method for assessing the quality of de-identified health data. Stud Health Technol Inform 228:312–316PubMed
77.
Barocas S, Nissenbaum H (2014) Big data’s end run around anonymity and consent. In: Lane J, Stodden V, Bender S, Nissenbaum H (eds) Privacy, big data, and the public good. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 44–75CrossRef
Metadata
Title
To share or not to share? Expected pros and cons of data sharing in radiological research
Authors
Francesco Sardanelli
Marco Alì
Myriam G. Hunink
Nehmat Houssami
Luca M. Sconfienza
Giovanni Di Leo
Publication date
01-06-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5165-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

European Radiology 6/2018 Go to the issue

Musculoskeletal

How, When, Why in Magnetic Resonance Arthrography: an International Survey by the European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology (ESSR)

Cardiac

Integrated prediction of lesion-specific ischaemia from quantitative coronary CT angiography using machine learning: a multicentre study

Hepatobiliary-Pancreas

Computed tomography findings in ABO-incompatible living donor liver transplantation recipients with biliary strictures

Musculoskeletal

Effect of intra-articular injection of intermediate-weight hyaluronic acid on hip and knee cartilage: in-vivo evaluation using T2 mapping

Oncology

Whole-body ultra-low dose CT using spectral shaping for detection of osteolytic lesion in multiple myeloma

Magnetic Resonance

An eight-year prospective controlled study about the safety and diagnostic value of cardiac and non-cardiac 1.5-T MRI in patients with a conventional pacemaker or a conventional implantable cardioverter defibrillator