e17576 Background: Campbell et al. (2002) examined the data sharing habits of geneticists and other life scientists from universities that receive funding from the NIH and found that genetics researchers are refusing to share results with colleagues, hindering the ability to replicate published results. This has not been explored in cancer research. Data sharing, data transparency, and collaboration adds value to research by reducing redundancy (time, resources, exposing trial participants to unnecessary risk). In cancer research there are existing results databases from the NCI to caBIG. The purpose of this study is to ascertain from the perspective of academic cancer researchers whether there is a need for a federally mandated comprehensive database of all cancer clinical trial results. Methods: The 11 question online questionnaire addressed data sharing. Responses are presented as percents of respondents who agree with each statement accompanied by 95% confidence intervals (CI). The 24 respondents included physicians, research nurses, regulatory staff, data management, and administration who work in cancer research in an academic setting. Results: Overall, 92% (95% CI, 74–98%) agree that a centralized comprehensive database will reduce redundancy, 100% (95% CI, 86–100%) agree that disclosing results to fellow researchers will help researchers to design better cancer clinical trials, and 96% (95% CI, 80–99%) agree that there is a need for a federally mandated comprehensive database of all clinical trial results. On database access 100% (95% CI, 86–100%) agree for academic researchers, 58% (95% CI, 39–76%) agree for the pharmaceutical industry, 50% (95% CI, 31–69%) agree for trial participants, 29% (95% CI, 15–49%) agree for the public, and 21% (95% CI, 9–40%) agree for media. Conclusions: This study is a step in exploring how the academic cancer research community feels about data sharing. The study population is small and limited to a single institution. To support generalizability of the findings, it is necessary to enlarge the population by increasing the number of participants from the chosen institution and/or to include other academic institutions in future studies. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
The Disclosure Decision of Foreign Clinical Trials in China: Moderating Effects of Firms’ Contingencies