调查英国研究人员对临床试验数据集的去身份化、匿名化、发布方法和再识别风险估计的看法。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-19 DOI:10.1177/17407745241259086
Aryelly Rodriguez, Steff C Lewis, Sandra Eldridge, Tracy Jackson, Christopher J Weir
{"title":"调查英国研究人员对临床试验数据集的去身份化、匿名化、发布方法和再识别风险估计的看法。","authors":"Aryelly Rodriguez, Steff C Lewis, Sandra Eldridge, Tracy Jackson, Christopher J Weir","doi":"10.1177/17407745241259086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are increasing pressures for anonymised datasets from clinical trials to be shared across the scientific community. However, there is no standardised set of recommendations on how to anonymise and prepare clinical trial datasets for sharing, while an ever-increasing number of anonymised datasets are becoming available for secondary research. Our aim was to explore the current views and experiences of researchers in the United Kingdom about de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used an online exploratory cross-sectional descriptive survey that consisted of both open-ended and closed questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We had 38 responses to invitation from June 2022 to October 2022. However, 35 participants (92%) used internal documentation and published guidance to de-identify/anonymise clinical trial datasets. De-identification, followed by anonymisation and then fulfilling data holders' requirements before access was granted (controlled access), was the most common process for releasing the datasets as reported by 18 (47%) participants. However, 11 participants (29%) had previous knowledge of re-identification risk estimation, but they did not use any of the methodologies. Experiences in the process of de-identifying/anonymising the datasets and maintaining such datasets were mostly negative, and the main reported issues were lack of resources, guidance, and training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of responders reported using documented processes for de-identification and anonymisation. However, our survey results clearly indicate that there are still gaps in the areas of guidance, resources and training to fulfil sharing requests of de-identified/anonymised datasets, and that re-identification risk estimation is an underdeveloped area.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":"22 1","pages":"11-23"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809122/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A survey on UK researchers' views regarding their experiences with the de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.\",\"authors\":\"Aryelly Rodriguez, Steff C Lewis, Sandra Eldridge, Tracy Jackson, Christopher J Weir\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745241259086\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There are increasing pressures for anonymised datasets from clinical trials to be shared across the scientific community. However, there is no standardised set of recommendations on how to anonymise and prepare clinical trial datasets for sharing, while an ever-increasing number of anonymised datasets are becoming available for secondary research. Our aim was to explore the current views and experiences of researchers in the United Kingdom about de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used an online exploratory cross-sectional descriptive survey that consisted of both open-ended and closed questions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We had 38 responses to invitation from June 2022 to October 2022. However, 35 participants (92%) used internal documentation and published guidance to de-identify/anonymise clinical trial datasets. De-identification, followed by anonymisation and then fulfilling data holders' requirements before access was granted (controlled access), was the most common process for releasing the datasets as reported by 18 (47%) participants. However, 11 participants (29%) had previous knowledge of re-identification risk estimation, but they did not use any of the methodologies. Experiences in the process of de-identifying/anonymising the datasets and maintaining such datasets were mostly negative, and the main reported issues were lack of resources, guidance, and training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The majority of responders reported using documented processes for de-identification and anonymisation. However, our survey results clearly indicate that there are still gaps in the areas of guidance, resources and training to fulfil sharing requests of de-identified/anonymised datasets, and that re-identification risk estimation is an underdeveloped area.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"11-23\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809122/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241259086\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/19 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241259086","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:来自临床试验的匿名数据集在科学界共享的压力越来越大。然而,对于如何匿名化和准备临床试验数据集以供共享,目前还没有一套标准化的建议,而越来越多的匿名数据集正可用于二次研究。我们的目的是探讨目前英国研究人员对临床试验数据集的去识别、匿名化、发布方法和再识别风险评估的看法和经验。方法:我们采用在线探索性横断面描述性调查,包括开放式和封闭式问题。结果:从2022年6月到2022年10月,我们收到了38份邀请函。然而,35名参与者(92%)使用内部文档和发表的指南来去识别/匿名临床试验数据集。18名(47%)参与者报告说,去识别化,然后是匿名化,然后在授予访问权限之前满足数据持有者的要求(受控访问),这是发布数据集的最常见过程。然而,11名参与者(29%)先前有重新识别风险评估的知识,但他们没有使用任何方法。在数据集去识别/匿名化和维护这些数据集的过程中,经验大多是负面的,报告的主要问题是缺乏资源、指导和培训。结论:大多数应答者报告使用文件化流程去识别和匿名化。然而,我们的调查结果清楚地表明,在满足去识别/匿名数据集的共享要求方面,在指导、资源和培训方面仍然存在差距,并且再识别风险评估是一个不发达的领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A survey on UK researchers' views regarding their experiences with the de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.

Background: There are increasing pressures for anonymised datasets from clinical trials to be shared across the scientific community. However, there is no standardised set of recommendations on how to anonymise and prepare clinical trial datasets for sharing, while an ever-increasing number of anonymised datasets are becoming available for secondary research. Our aim was to explore the current views and experiences of researchers in the United Kingdom about de-identification, anonymisation, release methods and re-identification risk estimation for clinical trial datasets.

Methods: We used an online exploratory cross-sectional descriptive survey that consisted of both open-ended and closed questions.

Results: We had 38 responses to invitation from June 2022 to October 2022. However, 35 participants (92%) used internal documentation and published guidance to de-identify/anonymise clinical trial datasets. De-identification, followed by anonymisation and then fulfilling data holders' requirements before access was granted (controlled access), was the most common process for releasing the datasets as reported by 18 (47%) participants. However, 11 participants (29%) had previous knowledge of re-identification risk estimation, but they did not use any of the methodologies. Experiences in the process of de-identifying/anonymising the datasets and maintaining such datasets were mostly negative, and the main reported issues were lack of resources, guidance, and training.

Conclusion: The majority of responders reported using documented processes for de-identification and anonymisation. However, our survey results clearly indicate that there are still gaps in the areas of guidance, resources and training to fulfil sharing requests of de-identified/anonymised datasets, and that re-identification risk estimation is an underdeveloped area.

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
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
×
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