Advertisement

Clinical trials in radiology and data sharing: results from a survey of the European Society of Radiology (ESR) research committee

  • Maria Bosserdt
  • Bernd Hamm
  • Marc DeweyEmail author
Imaging Informatics and Artificial Intelligence
  • 42 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To determine the current situation and future directions of clinical trials and data sharing in radiology.

Methods

This survey was conducted between July and September 2018 among European heads of imaging departments and speakers at the Clinical Trials in Radiology sessions at ECR 2015–2018. The survey was approved by the ESR research committee, was administered online, and chi-square tests were used.

Results

The overall response rate was 29% (132/460). Responses were received from institutions in 29 countries. These institutions reported having conducted 429 trials, leading to 332 publications, of which 43% were first and 44% were last authorships by those institutions. For future trials, 98% of respondents (93/95) said they would be interested in sharing data, although only 34% had shared data already (23/68, p < 0.001). The major barriers to data sharing were data protection (78%, 74/95), ethical issues (49%, 47/95), and the lack of a data sharing platform (49%, 47/95). Of the respondents, 89% believed a platform would facilitate data sharing (85/95 vs. 10/95 did not, p < 0.001) and should offer easy data uploading (74%, 70/95), data safety (66%, 63/95), easy communication between providers and re-users (62%, 59/95), and data access policies (56%, 53/95).

Conclusion

A considerable number of imaging trials are being performed and published by radiologists in Europe whilst data sharing is hardly taking place, despite great interest. This is most likely due to data protection and ethical issues, as well as the absence of a data sharing platform.

Key Points

• Radiologists have performed a considerable number of more than 400 imaging trials in the last 5 years.

• Although only 34% of institutions had shared trial data already, 98% are interested in doing so.

• Major data sharing barriers are ethics, data protection, and the absence of a sharing platform.

Keywords

Randomized controlled trial Clinical trial Diagnostic imaging Information dissemination Surveys and questionnaires 

Abbreviations

ECR

European Congress of Radiology

EIBIR

European Institute for Biomedical Imaging Research

ESR

European Society of Radiology

GDPR

General Data Protection Regulation

Notes

Acknowledgements

The abstract for this paper was accepted for the Clinical Trials in Radiology (CTiR) session of the European Congress of Radiology in Vienna 2019.

Funding

The study received no funding.

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Dr. Marc Dewey.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relevant relationships with companies and no conflicts of interest.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Not required for this anonymised survey.

Ethical approval

Not required for this anonymised survey.

Methodology

• Prospective

Supplementary material

330_2019_6105_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (181 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 180 kb)
330_2019_6105_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (519 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 518 kb)
330_2019_6105_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (512 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 512 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Sardanelli F, Hunink MG, Gilbert FJ, Di Leo G, Krestin GP (2010) Evidence-based radiology: why and how? Eur Radiol 20:1–15CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kruskal JB, Larson DB (2018) Strategies for radiology to thrive in the value era. Radiology 289:3–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taichman DB, Sahni P, Pinborg A et al (2017) Data sharing statements for clinical trials. BMJ 357:j2372CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sardanelli F, Ali M, Hunink MG, Houssami N, Sconfienza LM, Di Leo G (2018) To share or not to share? Expected pros and cons of data sharing in radiological research. Eur Radiol 28:2328–2335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P et al (2018) Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in the BMJ and PLOS medicine. BMJ 360:k400CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    EOSC (2018) European Open Science Cloud Pilot Project. Available via https://eoscpilot.eu/node. Accessed Nov 14 2018
  7. 7.
    Tricoci P, Allen JM, Kramer JM, Califf RM, Smith SC Jr (2009) Scientific evidence underlying the ACC/AHA clinical practice guidelines. JAMA 301:831–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baker M (2016) 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature 533:452–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Attyé A (2018) Data sharing improves scientific publication: example of the “hydrops initiative”. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5759-6
  10. 10.
    European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2015). ESR position paper on imaging biobanks. Insights Imaging 6:403–410Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haug CJ (2018) Turning the tables - the new European General Data Protection Regulation. N Engl J Med.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1806637
  12. 12.
    European Society of Radiology (ESR) (2017). The new EU General Data Protection Regulation: what the radiologist should know. Insights Imaging 8:295–299Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hricak H (2018) 2016 new horizons lecture: beyond imaging-radiology of tomorrow. Radiology 286:764–775CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pesapane F, Codari M, Sardanelli F (2018) Artificial intelligence in medical imaging: threat or opportunity? Radiologists again at the forefront of innovation in medicine. Eur Radiol Exp 2:35CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warren E (2016) Strengthening research through data sharing. N Engl J Med 375:401–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bierer BE, Li R, Barnes M, Sim I (2016) A global, neutral platform for sharing trial data. N Engl J Med 374:2411–2413CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mello MM, Lieou V, Goodman SN (2018) Clinical trial participants’ views of the risks and benefits of data sharing. N Engl J Med 378:2202–2211CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Haug CJ (2017) Whose data are they anyway? Can a patient perspective advance the data-sharing debate? N Engl J Med 376:2203–2205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ et al (2016) The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 3:160018CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohmann C, Banzi R, Canham S et al (2017) Sharing and reuse of individual participant data from clinical trials: principles and recommendations. BMJ Open 7:e018647CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nasser M, Clarke M, Chalmers I et al (2017) What are funders doing to minimise waste in research? Lancet 389:1006–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leung KY, van der Lijn F, Vrooman HA, Sturkenboom MC, Niessen WJ (2015) IT infrastructure to support the secondary use of routinely acquired clinical imaging data for research. Neuroinformatics 13:65–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Matlock M, Schimke N, Kong L, Macke S, Hale J (2012) Systematic redaction for neuroimage data. Int J Comput Models Algorithms Med 3(2).  https://doi.org/10.4018/jcmam.2012040104

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyCharite Medical School, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Freie Universitat BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations