DCRI Study Shows Limited Use of Open Trial Data Platforms
The study authors surmised that the lack of validation studies of initial trial results reflected that one goal of open access is not being met. Further, they believe that the limited use indicates a “failure to get the word out “ to researchers.
Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI) examined the early use of platforms designed to provide access to individual patient data, developed to increase transparency of clinical trial data, and found the use has been limited. The DCRI team explored three open access platforms – ClinicalStudyDataRequest.com, the Yale University Open Data Access Project (YODA), and the Supporting Open Access for Researchers (SOAR) initiative – to determine how many clinical trials were publicly available to investigators and how these open trial data were being used. Although more than 3,000 trials are currently available, only 15.5% had been requested. Most proposals did not focus on validating the primary results of the trial, instead suggesting secondary uses such as epidemiological studies, subgroup analyses, analyses of the disease state, or predictors of treatment response.
In a release, the study authors surmised that the lack of validation studies of initial trial results reflected that one goal of open access is not being met. Further, they believe that the limited use indicates a “failure to get the word out “ to researchers.
Ann Marie Navar, MD, PhD, the study’s lead author, told Applied Clinical Trials in an email response that they believe the reasons for lack of validation studies of original results is due to three economic factors. “There are no mechanisms in place to fund this type of research. Next, there may not be much scientific incentive to do this work. Studies that confirm the primary analyses are unlikely to be published in high-impact journals. Finally, as demonstrated by the variety of other projects being conducted using these data, researchers are more interested in their own original scientific questions than repeating others' analyses.”
Dr. Navar also responded that the publication of studies such as theirs, will help improve visibility of the platforms. “We also hope that as the studies using these data are completed that they acknowledge the mechanism through which data were accessed. To date, only one analysis has resulted in a publication. As more studies are completed and published, visibility should increase.”
The results were published in the March 22 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Read the full press release here.
Related articles
http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/behind-clinicalstudydatarequestcom-pharma-transparency
http://www.appliedclinicaltrialsonline.com/transcelerate-s-data-transparency-initiative
Putting Collective Insights Into Action to Advance Cancer Care: Key Examples From ASCO 2025
June 27th 2025At ASCO 2025, clinical operations leaders gained critical insights into how AI tools, bispecific antibodies, and evolving treatment paradigms are reshaping trial design, endpoint selection, and patient stratification.
Unifying Industry to Better Understand GCP Guidance
May 7th 2025In this episode of the Applied Clinical Trials Podcast, David Nickerson, head of clinical quality management at EMD Serono; and Arlene Lee, director of product management, data quality & risk management solutions at Medidata, discuss the newest ICH E6(R3) GCP guidelines as well as how TransCelerate and ACRO have partnered to help stakeholders better acclimate to these guidelines.
Funding Cuts Threaten Diversity in Clinical Research
June 27th 2025In this video interview, Kyle McAllister, co-founder, CEO, Trially, discusses how recent federal funding cuts are likely to undermine research focused on underrepresented populations, and why long-term investment in community-based studies is essential to closing persistent health equity gaps.
