Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
496
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
496 results for “randomised controlled trials”
Randomised, Controlled Trial of an Individual Deprescribing Intervention for Nursing Homes Residents
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03655405. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
STARchy Staples: a Randomised Controlled Trial on Cardiometabolic Health
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT05994313. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 6.
Hypnotherapy for Prevention of Relapse in Ulcerative Colitis: a Randomised, Single-blind, Controlled Clinical Trial
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00553163. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 38.
A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Intervention for Children and Young People Experiencing Family Substance Use
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06089447. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Effect of Pelvic Rehabilitation After Low Anterior Resection for Cancer Rectum. - A Randomised Controlled Trial
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06524362. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 9.
A Randomised, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled Phase IIb Trial to Test FLU-v Vaccine
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT02962908. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 6.
Efficacy in Preventing Hypertrophic Scars: A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Chitosan Cream, Silicone Gel & Olive Oil
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT07269093. IPD Sharing: NO. Countries: 1. Publications: 2.
Randomised Controlled Trial of Intubation With the McGrath Series 5 Video Laryngoscope vs the Macintosh Laryngoscope
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT00633867. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Pain Education and Patient-led Goal Setting in Adults With Chronic Low Back Pain: a Randomised Controlled Trial
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06620133. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 1.
Effects of a Second-generation Mindfulness-based Intervention on Quality of Life, Pain Management, and Psycho-spiritual Wellbeing in Cancer Patients: A Randomised Controlled Trial
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT06695234. IPD Sharing: YES. Countries: 1. Publications: 8.
This Trial is a Randomised, Multicentre, Investigator-blind, Vehicle and Comparator-controlled, Parallel-group Trial With the Purpose of Evaluation Efficacy, Safety and Convenience of the MC2-01 Cream
ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT03802344. IPD Sharing: Not stated. Countries: 2. Publications: 3.
Home-based exercise for people living with frailty and chronic kidney disease: a mixed-methods pilot randomised controlled trial
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Safety and efficacy of BCG re-vaccination in relation to COVID-19 morbidity in healthcare workers: A double-blind, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Effectiveness of screening and ultra-brief intervention for hazardous drinking in primary care: pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data from: Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women's decision making: the InforMa randomised controlled trial
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Data and statistical codes for: Reliability of urological telesurgery compared to local surgery: A multicenter, randomised controlled trial
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Dataset from "Is It Useful To Treat Blastocystis spp? A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised trial"
<p>Dataset as STATA (.dta) files with corresponding do-files used for statistical analysis and tables.<br> Study registered on clinicaltrials.gov under the NTC number : 01521403</p>
Data from: Cost-effectiveness of a specialist geriatric medical intervention for frail older people discharged from acute medical units: economic evaluation in a two-centre randomised controlled trial (AMIGOS)
Background: Poor outcomes and high resource-use are observed for frail older people discharged from acute medical units. A specialist geriatric medical intervention, to facilitate Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, was developed to reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes and associated high resource-use in this group in the post-discharge period. Objective: To examine the costs and cost-effectiveness of a specialist geriatric medical intervention for frail older people in the 90 days following discharge from an acute medical unit, compared with standard care. Methods: Economic evaluation was conducted alongside a two-centre randomised controlled trial (AMIGOS). 433 patients (aged 70 or over) at risk of future health problems, discharged from acute medical units within 72 hours of attending hospital, were recruited in two general hospitals in Nottingham and Leicester, UK. Participants were randomised to the intervention, comprising geriatrician assessment in acute units and further specialist management, or to control where patients received no additional intervention over and above standard care. Primary outcome was incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Results: We undertook cost-effectiveness analysis for 417 patients (intervention: 205). The difference in mean adjusted QALYs gained between groups at 3 months was -0.001 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.009, 0.007). Total adjusted secondary and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months were £4412 (€5624, $6878) and £4110 (€5239, $6408) for the intervention and standard care groups, the incremental cost was £302 (95% CI: 193, 410) [€385, $471]. The intervention was dominated by standard care with probability of 62%, and with 0% probability of cost-effectiveness (at £20,000/QALY threshold). Conclusions: The specialist geriatric medical intervention for frail older people discharged from acute medical unit was not cost-effective. Further research on designing effective and cost-effective specialist service for frail older people discharged from acute medical units is needed.
Data from: Economic evaluation of a general hospital unit for older people with delirium and dementia (TEAM randomised controlled trial)
Background: One in three hospital acute medical admissions is of an older person with cognitive impairment. Their outcomes are poor and the quality of their care in hospital has been criticised. A specialist unit to care for older people with delirium and dementia (the Medical and Mental Health Unit, MMHU) was developed and then tested in a randomised controlled trial where it delivered significantly higher quality of, and satisfaction with, care, but no significant benefits in terms of health status outcomes at three months. Objective: To examine the cost-effectiveness of the MMHU for older people with delirium and dementia in general hospitals, compared with standard care. Methods: Six hundred participants aged over 65 admitted for acute medical care, identified on admission as cognitively impaired, were randomised to the MMHU or to standard care on acute geriatric or general medical wards. Cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained, at 3-month follow-up, was assessed in trial-based economic evaluation (599/600 participants, intervention: 309). Multiple imputation and complete-case sample analyses were employed to deal with missing QALY data (55%). Results: The total adjusted health and social care costs, including direct costs of the intervention, at 3 months was £7714 and £7862 for MMHU and standard care groups, respectively (difference -£149 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -298, 4)). The difference in QALYs gained was 0.001 (95% CI: -0.006, 0.008). The probability that the intervention was dominant was 58%, and the probability that it was cost-saving with QALY loss was 39%. At £20,000/QALY threshold, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 94%, falling to 59% when cost-saving QALY loss cases were excluded. Conclusions: The MMHU was strongly cost-effective using usual criteria, although considerably less so when the less acceptable situation with QALY loss and cost savings were excluded. Nevertheless, this model of care is worthy of further evaluation.
Data from: The Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to management of low back pain in general practice: a pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial
Background: Effective and cost-effective primary care treatments for low back pain (LBP) are required to reduce the burden of the world's most disabling condition. This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Fear Reduction Exercised Early (FREE) approach to LBP (intervention) with usual general practitioner (GP) care (control). Methods and findings: This pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial with process evaluation and parallel economic evaluation was conducted in the Hutt Valley, New Zealand. Eight general practices were randomly assigned (stratified by practice size) with a 1:1 ratio to intervention (4 practices; 34 GPs) or control group (4 practices; 29 GPs). Adults presenting to these GPs with LBP as their primary complaint were recruited. GPs in the intervention practices were trained in the FREE approach, and patients presenting to these practices received care based on the FREE approach. The FREE approach restructures LBP consultations to prioritise early identification and management of barriers to recovery. GPs in control practices did not receive specific training for this study, and patients presenting to these practices received usual care. Between 23 September 2016 and 31 July 2017, 140 eligible patients presented to intervention practices (126 enrolled) and 110 eligible patients presented to control practices (100 enrolled). Patient mean age was 46.1 years (SD 14.4), and 46% were female. The duration of LBP was less than 6 weeks in 88% of patients. Primary outcome was change from baseline in patient participant Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 6 months. Secondary patient outcomes included pain, satisfaction, and psychosocial indices. GP outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, confidence, and GP LBP management behaviour. There was active and passive surveillance of potential harms. Patients and outcome assessors were blind to group assignment. Analysis followed intention-to-treat principles. A total of 122 (97%) patients from 32 GPs in the intervention group and 99 (99%) patients from 25 GPs in the control group were included in the primary outcome analysis. At 6 months, the groups did not significantly differ on the primary outcome (adjusted mean RMDQ score difference 0.57, 95% CI −0.64 to 1.78; p = 0.354) or secondary patient outcomes. The RMDQ difference met the predefined criterion to indicate noninferiority. One control group participant experienced an activity-related gluteal tear, with no other adverse events recorded. Intervention group GPs had improvements in attitudes, knowledge, and confidence compared with control group GPs. Intervention group GP LBP management behaviour became more guideline concordant than the control group. In cost-effectiveness, the intervention dominated control with lower costs and higher Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains. Limitations of this study were that although adequately powered for primary outcome assessment, the study was not powered for evaluating some employment, healthcare use, and economic outcomes. It was also not possible for research nurses (responsible for patient recruitment) to be masked on group allocation for practices. Conclusions: Findings from this study suggest that the FREE approach improves GP concordance with LBP guideline recommendations but does not improve patient recovery outcomes compared with usual care. The FREE approach may reduce unnecessary healthcare use and produce economic benefits. Work participation or health resource use should be considered for primary outcome assessment in future trials of undifferentiated LBP.
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.