1921
Volume 100, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 0002-9637
  • E-ISSN: 1476-1645

Abstract

Abstract.

Data are the basis for all scientific output. The sharing of data supporting that output is an important aspect of scientific communication, and is increasingly required by funders and publishers. Yet, academic advancement seldom recognizes or rewards data sharing. This article argues that although mandating data sharing will increase the amount of data available, this will not necessarily enable or encourage the secondary analyses needed to achieve its purported public good. We, therefore, need to build models that maximize the efficiency of processes for data collation and curation, and genuinely reward those engaged in data sharing and reuse. The WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network has 10 years of experience as a data platform, and its study group approach provides an example of how some of the challenges in equitable and impactful data-sharing and secondary use can be addressed, with a focus on the priorities of researchers in resource-limited settings.

[open-access] This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

The graphs shown below represent data from March 2017
/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0649
2019-01-09
2019-01-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/14761645/100/1/tpmd180649.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0649&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bull S, Roberts N, Parker M, , 2015. Views of ethical best practices in sharing individual-level data from medical and public health research: a systematic scoping review. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 10: 225238. [Google Scholar]
  2. Serwadda D, Ndebele P, Grabowski MK, Bajunirwe F, Wanyenze RK, , 2018. Open data sharing and the global south-who benefits? Science 359: 642643. [Google Scholar]
  3. Stewart LA, Parmar MK, , 1993. Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference? Lancet 341: 418422. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM, , 2005. An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 662667. [Google Scholar]
  5. Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC, Jones DR, Heney D, Burchill SA, , 2003. Reporting of prognostic markers: current problems and development of guidelines for evidence-based practice in the future. Br J Cancer 88: 11911198. [Google Scholar]
  6. Das D, Price RN, Bethell D, Guerin PJ, Stepniewska K, , 2013. Early parasitological response following artemisinin-containing regimens: a critical review of the literature. Malar J 12: 125. [Google Scholar]
  7. Chalmers I, , 1993. The cochrane collaboration: preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Ann N Y Acad Sci 703: 156165. [Google Scholar]
  8. Tierney JF, Vale C, Riley R, Smith CT, Stewart L, Clarke M, Rovers M, , 2015. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: guidance on their use. PLoS Med 12: e1001855. [Google Scholar]
  9. Huang Y, Tang J, Wai-San Tam W, Mao C, Yuan J, Di M, Yang Z, , 2016. Comparing the overall result and interaction in aggregate data meta-analysis and individual patient data meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95: e3312. [Google Scholar]
  10. Kovalchik SA, , 2012. Survey finds that most meta-analysts do not attempt to collect individual patient data. J Clin Epidemiol 65: 12961299. [Google Scholar]
  11. Piwowar HA, Vision TJ, , 2013. Data reuse and the open data citation advantage. PeerJ 1: e175. [Google Scholar]
  12. Vivli, 2018. Available at: http://vivli.org/. Accessed July 1, 2018.
  13. Project Data Sphere, 2014. Available at: https://projectdatasphere.org/projectdatasphere/html/home. Accessed July 1, 2018.
  14. Julé AM, 2016. The schistosomiasis clinical trials landscape: a systematic review of antischistosomal treatment efficacy studies and a case for sharing individual participant-level data (IPD). PLoS Negl Trop Dis 10: e0004784. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bush JT, Wasunna M, Alves F, Alvar J, Olliaro PL, Otieno M, Sibley CH, Strub Wourgaft N, Guerin PJ, , 2017. Systematic review of clinical trials assessing the therapeutic efficacy of visceral leishmaniasis treatments: a first step to assess the feasibility of establishing an individual patient data sharing platform. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 11: e0005781. [Google Scholar]
  16. Merson L, Gaye O, Guerin PJ, , 2016. Avoiding data dumpsters–toward equitable and useful data sharing. N Engl J Med. 374: 24142415. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pisani E, Botchway S, , 2016. Learning from the Pioneers: Lessons about Data Platforms Drawn from the WWARN Experience. Wellcome Trust. Paper. Available at: https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4476308.v1. Accessed July 1, 2018.
  18. Hoglund RM, 2017. Population pharmacokinetic properties of piperaquine in falciparum malaria: an individual participant data meta-analysis. PLoS Med 14: e1002212. [Google Scholar]
  19. WWARN Artemisinin based Combination Therapy (ACT) Africa Baseline Study Group Dahal P, d’Alessandro U, Dorsey G, Guerin PJ, Nsanzabana C, Price RN, Sibley CH, Stepniewska K, Talisuna AO, , ; , 2015. Clinical determinants of early parasitological response to ACTs in African patients with uncomplicated falciparum malaria: a literature review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMC Med 13: 212. [Google Scholar]
  20. Worldwide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) AL Dose Impact Study Group, 2015. The effect of dose on the antimalarial efficacy of artemether–lumefantrine: a systematic review and pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet Infect Dis 15: 692702. [Google Scholar]
  21. WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) AS-AQ Study Group Adjuik MA, ; 2015. The effect of dosing strategies on the therapeutic efficacy of artesunate-amodiaquine for uncomplicated malaria: a meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMC Med 13: 66. [Google Scholar]
  22. WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) DP Study Group, 2013. The effect of dosing regimens on the antimalarial efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. PLoS Med 10: e1001564. [Google Scholar]
  23. Abdulla S, WWARN Parasite Clearance Study Group; 2015. Baseline data of parasite clearance in patients with falciparum malaria treated with an artemisinin derivative: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Malar J 14: 359. [Google Scholar]
  24. Venkatesan M, 2014. Polymorphisms in Plasmodium falciparum chloroquine resistance transporter and multidrug resistance 1 genes: parasite risk factors that affect treatment outcomes for P. falciparum malaria after artemether-lumefantrine and artesunate-amodiaquine. Am J Trop Med Hyg 91: 833843. [Google Scholar]
  25. WorldWide Antimalarial Resistance Network (WWARN) Lumefantrine PK/PD Study Group, 2015. Artemether-lumefantrine treatment of uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis of day 7 lumefantrine concentrations and therapeutic response using individual patient data. BMC Med 13: 227. [Google Scholar]
  26. WWARN Gametocyte Study Group, 2016. Gametocyte carriage in uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria following treatment with artemisinin combination therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data. BMC Med 14: 79. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bergstrand M, Nosten F, Lwin KM, Karlsson MO, White NJ, Tarning J, , 2014. Characterization of an in vivo concentration-effect relationship for piperaquine in malaria chemoprevention. Sci Transl Med 6: 260ra147. [Google Scholar]
  28. WHO, 2015. Guidelines for the Treatment of Malaria. Available at: http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/atoz/9789241549127/en/. Accessed July 1, 2018.
  29. Flegg JA, Guerin PJ, White NJ, Stepniewska K, , 2011. Standardizing the measurement of parasite clearance in falciparum malaria: the parasite clearance estimator. Malar J 10: 339. [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.4269/ajtmh.18-0649
Loading
  • Received : 08 Aug 2018
  • Accepted : 16 Sep 2018

Most Cited This Month

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error