Table 4 Studies investigating the willingness to share IPD in clinical trial registries
From: An assessment of the informative value of data sharing statements in clinical trial registries
Author, year | Time | Resource | Trial type | “yes” in DSS field of trial registration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Bergeris et al., 2018 [2] | January 2016 to August 2017 | CT.gov | Interventional trial | 10.9% (2782/25551) |
Tan et al., 2021 [7] | December 2018 to November 2019 | ANZTR | Interventional trial | 22% (329/1517) commitment to share data |
Statham et al, 2020 [13] | January 2018 to June 2018 | CT.gov | Interventional trial | 5.5% (112/23040) |
Li et al., 2021 [14] | Before 30 June 2020 | CT.gov | COVID-19, interventional trial | 15.7% (145/924) 17.3% (159/924) after re-classification |
Larsson et al, 2022 [15] | Up to September 2021 | CT.gov | COVID-19, interventional trial | 15% (417/2759) 15.7% (432/2759) after re-classification |
Merson et al., 2022 [16] | January 2019 to December 2020 | WHO ICTRP | Registered trial | 4.8% (28,684/593,595) |
Malinga, et al., [17] | From 2019 to September 2022 | PACTR, SANCTR | Registered trial | 97% (1763/1818 in PACTR 100% (477/477) in SANCTR |
Xu et al., 2020 [18] | Up to 31 December 2018 | WHO ICTRP | Global registration of studies sponsored by China | Around 5% |