Search

Background: The provision of data sharing statements (DSS) for clinical trials has been made mandatory by different stakeholders. DSS are a device to clarify whether there is intention to share individual participant data (IPD). What is missing is a detailed assessment of whether DSS are providing clear and understandable information about the conditions for data sharing of IPD for secondary use. Methods: A random sample of 200 COVID-19 clinical trials with explicit DSS was drawn from the ECRIN clinical research metadata repository. The DSS were assessed and classified, by two experienced experts and one assessor with less experience in data sharing (DS), into different categories (unclear, no sharing, no plans, yes but vague, yes on request, yes with specified storage location, yes but with complex conditions). Results: Between the two experts the agreement was moderate to substantial (kappa=0.62, 95% CI [0.55, 0.70]). Agreement considerably decreased when these experts were compared with a third person who was less experienced and trained in data sharing ("assessor") (kappa=0.33, 95% CI [0.25, 0.41]; 0.35, 95% CI [0.27, 0.43]). Between the two experts and under supervision of an independent moderator, a consensus was achieved for those cases, where both experts had disagreed, and the result was used as "gold standard" for further analysis. At least some degree of willingness of DS (data sharing) was expressed in 63.5% (127/200) cases. Of these cases, around one quarter (31/127) were vague statements of support for data sharing but without useful detail. In around half of the cases (60/127) it was stated that IPD could be obtained by request. Only in in slightly more than 10% of the cases (15/127) it was stated that the IPD would be transferred to a specific data repository. In the remaining cases (21/127), a more complex regime was described or referenced, which could not be allocated to one of the three previous groups. As a result of the consensus meetings, the classification system was updated. Conclusion: The study showed that the current DSS that imply possible data sharing are often not easy to interpret, even by relatively experienced staff. Machine based interpretation, which would be necessary for any practical application, is currently not possible. Machine learning and / or natural language processing techniques might improve machine actionability, but would represent a very substantial investment of research effort. The cheaper and easier option would be for data providers, data requestors, funders and platforms to adopt a clearer, more structured and more standardised approach to specifying, providing and collecting DSS. Trial registration: The protocol for the study was pre-registered on ZENODO (https://zenodo.org/record/7064624#.Y4DIAHbMJD8). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A large number of stakeholders have accepted the need for greater transparency in clinical research and, in the context of various initiatives and systems, have developed a diverse and expanding number of repositories for storing the data and documents created by clinical studies (collectively known as data objects). To make the best use of such resources, we assert that it is also necessary for stakeholders to agree and deploy a simple, consistent metadata scheme. Methods: The relevant data objects and their likely storage are described, and the requirements for metadata to support data sharing in clinical research are identified. Issues concerning persistent identifiers, for both studies and data objects, are explored. Results: A scheme is proposed that is based on the DataCite standard, with extensions to cover the needs of clinical researchers, specifically to provide (a) study identification data, including links to clinical trial registries; (b) data object characteristics and identifiers; and (c) data covering location, ownership and access to the data object. The components of the metadata scheme are described. Conclusions: The metadata schema is proposed as a natural extension of a widely agreed standard to fill a gap not tackled by other standards related to clinical research (e.g., Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium, Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group). The proposal could be integrated with, but is not dependent on, other moves to better structure data in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Growing use of cloud computing in clinical trials prompted the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network, a European non-profit organisation established to support multinational clinical research, to organise a one-day workshop on the topic to clarify potential benefits and risks. The issues that arose in that workshop are summarised and include the following: the nature of cloud computing and the cloud computing industry; the risks in using cloud computing services now; the lack of explicit guidance on this subject, both generally and with reference to clinical trials; and some possible ways of reducing risks. There was particular interest in developing and using a European 'community cloud' specifically for academic clinical trial data. It was recognised that the day-long workshop was only the start of an ongoing process. Future discussion needs to include clarification of trial-specific regulatory requirements for cloud computing and involve representatives from the relevant regulatory bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Growing use of cloud computing in clinical trials prompted the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network, a European non-profit organisation established to support multinational clinical research, to organise a one-day workshop on the topic to clarify potential benefits and risks. The issues that arose in that workshop are summarised and include the following: the nature of cloud computing and the cloud computing industry; the risks in using cloud computing services now; the lack of explicit guidance on this subject, both generally and with reference to clinical trials; and some possible ways of reducing risks. There was particular interest in developing and using a European ‘community cloud’ specifically for academic clinical trial data. It was recognised that the day-long workshop was only the start of an ongoing process. Future discussion needs to include clarification of trial-specific regulatory requirements for cloud computing and involve representatives from the relevant regulatory bodies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The pilot phase of the ECRIN (European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network) certification programme for European data centres, in late 2011, led to a substantial revision of the original ECRIN standards, completed by June 2012. The pilot phase, the conclusions drawn from it and the revised set of standards are described. Issues concerning the further development of standards and related material are discussed, as are the methods available to best support that development. A strategy is outlined based on short-lived specific task groups, established as necessary by a steering group drawn from ECRIN-ERIC. A final section discusses possible future developments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biomedical data are generated and collected from various sources, including medical imaging, laboratory tests and genome sequencing. Sharing these data for research can help address unmet health needs, contribute to scientific breakthroughs, accelerate the development of more effective treatments and inform public health policy. Due to the potential sensitivity of such data, however, privacy concerns have led to policies that restrict data sharing. In addition, sharing sensitive data requires a secure and robust infrastructure with appropriate storage solutions. Here, we examine and compare the centralized and federated data sharing models through the prism of five large-scale and real-world use cases of strategic significance within the European data sharing landscape: the French Health Data Hub, the BBMRI-ERIC Colorectal Cancer Cohort, the federated European Genome-phenome Archive, the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership/OHDSI network and the EBRAINS Medical Informatics Platform. Our analysis indicates that centralized models facilitate data linkage, harmonization and interoperability, while federated models facilitate scaling up and legal compliance, as the data typically reside on the data generator's premises, allowing for better control of how data are shared. This comparative study thus offers guidance on the selection of the most appropriate sharing strategy for sensitive datasets and provides key insights for informed decision-making in data sharing efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Data repositories have the potential to play an important role in the effective and safe sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. We analysed the current landscape of data repositories to create a detailed description of available repositories and assess their suitability for hosting data from clinical studies, from the perspective of the clinical researcher.Methods: We assessed repositories that enable storage, sharing, discoverability, re-use of the IPD and associated documents from clinical studies using a pre-defined set of 34 items and publicly available information from April to June 2018. For this purpose, we developed an indicator set to capture the maturity of the repositories' procedures and their suitability for the hosting of IPD. The indicators cover guidelines for data upload and data de-identification, data quality controls, contracts for upload and storage, flexibility of access, application of identifiers, availability of metadata, and long-term preservation.Results: We analysed 25 repositories, from an initial set of 55 identified as possibly relevant. Half of the included repositories were generic, i.e. not limited to a specific disease or clinical area and 13 were launched in the last 8 years. The sample was extremely heterogeneous and included repositories developed by research funders, infrastructures, universities, and editors. All but three repositories do not apply a fee for uploading, storage or access to data. None of the repositories completely demonstrated all the items included in the indicator set, but three repositories (Dryad, Drum, EASY) met - fully or partially - all items. Flexibility of data-access modalities appears to be limited, being lacking in half of the repositories.Conclusions: Our evaluation, though often hampered by the lack of sufficient information, can help researchers to find a suitable repository for their datasets. Some repositories are more mature because of their support for clinical dataset preparation, contractual agreements, metadata and identifiers, different modalities of access, and long-term preservation of data. Further work is now required to achieve a more robust and accurate system for evaluation, which in turn may encourage the sharing of clinical study data.Trial Registration: Study protocol available at https://zenodo.org/record/1438261#.W64kW9Egrcs . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For life science infrastructures, sensitive data generate an additional layer of complexity. Cross-domain categorisation and discovery of digital resources related to sensitive data presents major interoperability challenges. To support this FAIRification process, a toolbox demonstrator aiming at support for discovery of digital objects related to sensitive data (e.g., regulations, guidelines, best practice, tools) has been developed. The toolbox is based upon a categorisation system developed and harmonised across a cluster of 6 life science research infrastructures. Three different versions were built, tested by subsequent pilot studies, finally leading to a system with 7 main categories (sensitive data type, resource type, research field, data type, stage in data sharing life cycle, geographical scope, specific topics). 109 resources attached with the tags in pilot study 3 were used as the initial content for the toolbox demonstrator, a software tool allowing searching of digital objects linked to sensitive data with filtering based upon the categorisation system. Important next steps are a broad evaluation of the usability and user-friendliness of the toolbox, extension to more resources, broader adoption by different life-science communities, and a long-term vision for maintenance and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent survey has shown that data management in clinical trials performed by academic trial units still faces many difficulties (e.g. heterogeneity of software products, deficits in quality management, limited human and financial resources and the complexity of running a local computer centre). Unfortunately, no specific, practical and open standard for both GCP-compliant data management and the underlying IT-infrastructure is available to improve the situation. For that reason the "Working Group on Data Centres" of the European Clinical Research Infrastructures Network (ECRIN) has developed a standard specifying the requirements for high quality GCPcompliant data management in multinational clinical trials. Methods: International, European and national regulations and guidelines relevant to GCP, data security and IT infrastructures, as well as ECRIN documents produced previously, were evaluated to provide a starting point for the development of standard requirements. The requirements were produced by expert consensus of the ECRIN Working group on Data Centres, using a structured and standardised process. The requirements were divided into two main parts: an IT part covering standards for the underlying IT infrastructure and computer systems in general, and a Data Management (DM) part covering requirements for data management applications in clinical trials. Results: The standard developed includes 115 IT requirements, split into 15 separate sections, 107 DM requirements (in 12 sections) and 13 other requirements (2 sections). Sections IT01 to IT05 deal with the basic IT infrastructure while IT06 and IT07 cover validation and local software development. IT08 to IT015 concern the aspects of IT systems that directly support clinical trial management. Sections DM01 to DM03 cover the implementation of a specific clinical data management application, i.e. for a specific trial, whilst DM04 to DM12 address the data management of trials across the unit. Section IN01 is dedicated to international aspects and ST01 to the competence of a trials unit's staff. Conclusions: The standard is intended to provide an open and widely used set of requirements for GCP-compliant data management, particularly in academic trial units. It is the intention that ECRIN will use these requirements as the basis for the certification of ECRIN data centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]