我们如何衡量共享生物医学研究数据的成本、收益和危害?范围审查的协议。

Open research Europe Pub Date : 2025-01-14 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2
Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar, Ankur Krishnan
{"title":"我们如何衡量共享生物医学研究数据的成本、收益和危害?范围审查的协议。","authors":"Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar, Ankur Krishnan","doi":"10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The benefits of sharing participant-level data, including clinical or epidemiological data, genomic data, high-dimensional imaging data, or human-derived samples, from biomedical studies have been widely touted and may be taken for granted. As investments in data sharing and reuse efforts continue to grow, understanding the cost and positive and negative effects of data sharing for research participants, the general public, individual researchers, research and development, clinical practice, and public health is of growing importance. In this scoping review, we will identify and summarize existing evidence on the positive and negative impacts and costs of data sharing and how they are measured.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>Eligible studies will report on qualitative or quantitative approaches for measuring the cost of data sharing or its impact on participant privacy, individual or public health, researcher's careers, clinical or public health practice, or research or development. The systematic search strategy uses MeSH and text terms and is tailored for Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We will apply the Arskey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. We selected a scoping rather than a systematic review approach to address multiple related questions and provide guidance related to an emerging field. Two reviewers will conduct the title-abstract and full-text screening and data charting independently. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus and results will be summarized in a narrative form.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Research participants, investigators, regulatory groups, ethics review committees, data protection officers, and funders cannot make informed decisions or policies about data reuse without appropriate means of measuring the effects, positive or negative, and cost of data sharing.</p>","PeriodicalId":74359,"journal":{"name":"Open research Europe","volume":"3 ","pages":"151"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757919/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren Maxwell, Priya Shreedhar, Ankur Krishnan\",\"doi\":\"10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The benefits of sharing participant-level data, including clinical or epidemiological data, genomic data, high-dimensional imaging data, or human-derived samples, from biomedical studies have been widely touted and may be taken for granted. As investments in data sharing and reuse efforts continue to grow, understanding the cost and positive and negative effects of data sharing for research participants, the general public, individual researchers, research and development, clinical practice, and public health is of growing importance. In this scoping review, we will identify and summarize existing evidence on the positive and negative impacts and costs of data sharing and how they are measured.</p><p><strong>Methods and analysis: </strong>Eligible studies will report on qualitative or quantitative approaches for measuring the cost of data sharing or its impact on participant privacy, individual or public health, researcher's careers, clinical or public health practice, or research or development. The systematic search strategy uses MeSH and text terms and is tailored for Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We will apply the Arskey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. We selected a scoping rather than a systematic review approach to address multiple related questions and provide guidance related to an emerging field. Two reviewers will conduct the title-abstract and full-text screening and data charting independently. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus and results will be summarized in a narrative form.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Research participants, investigators, regulatory groups, ethics review committees, data protection officers, and funders cannot make informed decisions or policies about data reuse without appropriate means of measuring the effects, positive or negative, and cost of data sharing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Open research Europe\",\"volume\":\"3 \",\"pages\":\"151\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11757919/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Open research Europe\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open research Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/openreseurope.16063.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

从生物医学研究中共享参与者层面的数据,包括临床或流行病学数据、基因组数据、高维成像数据或人类衍生样本的好处已被广泛吹捧,可能被认为是理所当然的。随着对数据共享和重用工作的投资不断增加,了解数据共享对研究参与者、一般公众、个别研究人员、研发、临床实践和公共卫生的成本和积极和消极影响变得越来越重要。在这一范围审查中,我们将确定和总结有关数据共享的积极和消极影响和成本以及如何衡量这些影响和成本的现有证据。方法和分析:符合条件的研究将报告用于衡量数据共享成本或其对参与者隐私、个人或公共卫生、研究人员职业、临床或公共卫生实践或研究或开发的影响的定性或定量方法。系统的搜索策略使用MeSH和文本术语,并为Ovid Medline,护理和联合健康文献累积索引和科学网络量身定制。我们将采用Arskey和O'Malley的范围审查方法。我们选择了范围界定而不是系统回顾方法来解决多个相关问题并提供与新兴领域相关的指导。两名审稿人将独立进行标题摘要和全文筛选和数据制图。分歧将通过协商一致解决,结果将以叙述形式总结。结论:研究参与者、调查人员、监管团体、伦理审查委员会、数据保护官员和资助者如果没有适当的方法来衡量数据共享的积极或消极影响和成本,就无法就数据重用做出明智的决定或政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do we measure the costs, benefits, and harms of sharing data from biomedical studies? A protocol for a scoping review.

Introduction: The benefits of sharing participant-level data, including clinical or epidemiological data, genomic data, high-dimensional imaging data, or human-derived samples, from biomedical studies have been widely touted and may be taken for granted. As investments in data sharing and reuse efforts continue to grow, understanding the cost and positive and negative effects of data sharing for research participants, the general public, individual researchers, research and development, clinical practice, and public health is of growing importance. In this scoping review, we will identify and summarize existing evidence on the positive and negative impacts and costs of data sharing and how they are measured.

Methods and analysis: Eligible studies will report on qualitative or quantitative approaches for measuring the cost of data sharing or its impact on participant privacy, individual or public health, researcher's careers, clinical or public health practice, or research or development. The systematic search strategy uses MeSH and text terms and is tailored for Ovid Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Web of Science. We will apply the Arskey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. We selected a scoping rather than a systematic review approach to address multiple related questions and provide guidance related to an emerging field. Two reviewers will conduct the title-abstract and full-text screening and data charting independently. Discrepancies will be resolved through consensus and results will be summarized in a narrative form.

Conclusion: Research participants, investigators, regulatory groups, ethics review committees, data protection officers, and funders cannot make informed decisions or policies about data reuse without appropriate means of measuring the effects, positive or negative, and cost of data sharing.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信