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.
6,512
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.7.1
Dataset results
6,512 results for “clinical trial”
A randomized clinical trial to compare P. falciparum gametocytaemia and infectivity following blood-stage or mosquito bite induced controlled malaria infection
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Remodeling dental anatomy vs sham therapy for chronic temporomandibular disorders: A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Patient burden and clinical advances associated with post-approval monotherapy cancer drug trials: a systematic review
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Single versus multiple dose ivermectin regimen in onchocerciasis-infected persons with epilepsy treated with phenobarbital: a randomized clinical trial in the Democratic Republic of Congo
<p>Open data for a randomized clinical trial performed in onchocerciasis-endemic villages of the Logo health zone in Ituri province in the Democratic Republic of Congo where mass ivermectin administration had never been implemented. Ivermectin naïve, persons with epilepsy with <em>Onchocerca volvulus</em> infection were randomly allocated to receive ivermectin once, twice or thrice over a one year period of follow up. At the same time they were treated with the anti-epileptic drug phenobarbital. At baseline, information was collected on seizure semiology, seizure frequency, epilepsy risk factors, relevant medical history, previous AED and ivermectin use. The primary outcome was seizure freedom during the last four months of the 12-month follow up period.</p>
The Effects of Tramadol and Paracetamol on Physical Performance, Brain Dynamics and Sustained Attention During Cycling Exercise: A Double Blind Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial
<p>The purposes of the current project are: 1) to investigate further the effect of Tramadol on cycling (at the physical, cognitive and brain levels) on the basis of the preliminary results of the TRAWADA2015 study (<a href="https://zenodo.org/deposit/1308615">https://zenodo.org/deposit/1308615</a>); 2) to study the effect of paracetamol at the physical, cognitive and brain levels during an aerobic and anaerobic exercise on cycle-ergometer, and compare it to that of tramadol</p>
Data from: Initiating Antiretroviral Therapy for HIV at a Patient's First Clinic Visit: The RapIT Randomized Controlled Trial
<p><strong>Background:</strong> High rates of patient attrition from care between HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation have been documented in sub-Saharan Africa, contributing to persistently low CD4 cell counts at treatment initiation. One reason for this is that starting ART in many countries is a lengthy and burdensome process, imposing long waits and multiple clinic visits on patients. We estimated the effect on uptake of ART and viral suppression of an accelerated initiation algorithm that allowed treatment-eligible patients to be dispensed their first supply of antiretroviral medications on the day of their first HIV-related clinic visit.</p> <p><strong>Methods and Findings: </strong>RapIT was an unblinded randomized controlled trial of single-visit ART initiation in two public sector clinics in South Africa (a primary health clinic (PHC) and a hospital-based HIV clinic). Adult (≥18), non-pregnant patients receiving a positive HIV test or first treatment-eligible CD4 count were randomized to standard or rapid initiation. Rapid arm patients received a point-of-care (POC) CD4 count if needed; those ART-eligible received a POC TB test if symptomatic, POC blood tests, physical exam, education, counseling, and ARV dispensing. Standard arm patients followed standard clinic procedures (3-5 additional clinic visits over 2-4 weeks prior to ARV dispensing). Follow up was by record review only. The primary outcome was viral suppression, defined as initiated, retained in care, and suppressed (<=400 copies/ml) ≤ 10 months of study enrollment. Secondary outcomes included initiation of ART ≤ 90 days of study enrollment; retention in care; time to ART initiation; patient-level predictors of primary outcomes; prevalence of TB symptoms; and the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention. A survival analysis was conducted comparing attrition from care after ART initiation between the groups among those who initiated within 90 days. 377 patients were enrolled in the study between May 8, 2013 and August 29, 2014 (median CD4 count 210 cells/mm<sup>3</sup>). In the rapid arm, 119/187 patients (64%) initiated and were suppressed at 10 months, compared to 96/190 (51%) in the standard arm (RR 1.26 [1.05-1.50]. In the rapid arm 182/187 (97%) initiated ART ≤ 90 days, compared to 136/190 (72%) in the standard arm (relative risk [95% CI] 1.36 [1.24-1.49]. Among 318 patients who did initiate ART within 90 days, the hazard of attrition within the first 10 months did not differ between the treatment arms (HR 1.06; 95% CI 0.61-1.84). The study was limited by the small number of sites and small sample size and the generalizability of the results to other settings and to non-research conditions is uncertain.</p> <p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Offering single-visit ART initiation to adult patients in South Africa increased uptake of ART by 36% and viral suppression by 26%. It should be considered for adoption in the public sector in Africa.</p>
Data from: Adjunctive clindamycin for cellulitis: clinical trial comparing flucloxacillin with or without clindamycin for the treatment of limb cellulitis
Objective: To compare flucloxacillin with clindamycin to flucloxacillin alone for the treatment of limb cellulitis. Design: Parallel, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Emergency department attendances and general practice referrals within 20 hospitals in England. Interventions: Flucloxacillin, at a minimum of 500 mg 4 times per day for 5 days, with clindamycin 300 mg 4 times per day for 2 days given orally versus flucloxacillin given alone. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was improvement at day 5. This was defined as being afebrile with either a reduction in affected skin surface temperature or a reduction in the circumference of the affected area. Secondary outcomes included resolution of systemic features, resolution of inflammatory markers, recovery of renal function, reduction in the affected area, decrease in pain, return to work or normal activities and the absence of increased side effects. Results: 410 patients were included in the trial. No significant difference was seen in improvement at day 5 for flucloxacillin with clindamycin (136/156, 87%) versus flucloxacillin alone (140/172, 81%)—OR 1.55 (95% CI 0.81 to 3.01), p=0.174. There was a significant difference in the number of patients with diarrhoea at day 5 in the flucloxacillin with clindamycin allocation (34/160, 22%) versus flucloxacillin alone (16/176, 9%)—OR 2.7 (95% CI 1.41 to 5.07), p=0.002. There was no clinically significant difference in any secondary outcome measures. There was no significant difference in the number of patients stating that they had returned to normal activities at the day 30 interview in the flucloxacillin with clindamycin allocation (99/121, 82%) versus flucloxacillin alone (104/129, 81%)—adjusted OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.44 to 1.84). Conclusions: The addition of a short course of clindamycin to flucloxacillin early on in limb cellulitis does not improve outcome. The addition of clindamycin doubles the likelihood of diarrhoea within the first few days.
Data from: A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa
Objectives: To assess the relation between the number of clinical trials conducted and respective new drug approvals in India and South Africa. Design: Construction and analysis of a comprehensive database of completed randomised controlled clinical trials based on clinicaltrials.gov from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010 and drug approval data from 2006 until 2013 for India and South Africa. Setting: USA, the EU, India and South Africa. Main outcome measures: Percentage of completed randomised clinical trials for an Investigational Medicinal Product (IMP) leading to new drug approval in India and South Africa. Results: A total of 622 eligible randomised controlled trials were identified as per search criteria for India and South Africa. Clustering them for the same sponsor and the same Investigational New Drug (IND) resulted in 453 eligible trials, that is, 224 for India and 229 for South Africa. The distribution of the market application approvals between the EU/USA as well as India and South Africa revealed that out of clinical trials with the participation of test centres in India and/or South Africa, 39.6% (India) clinical trials and 60.1% (South Africa) clinical trials led to market authorisation in the EU/USA without a New Drug Application (NDA) approval in India or South Africa. Conclusions: Despite an increase in clinical trial activities, there is a clear gap between the number of trials conducted and market availability of these new drugs in India and South Africa. Drug regulatory authorities, investigators, institutional review boards and patient groups should direct their efforts to ensuring availability of new drugs in the market that have been tested and researched on their population.
Data from: A single session of hyperbaric oxygen therapy demonstrates acute and long-lasting neuroplasticity effects in humans: a replicated, randomized controlled clinical trial
Purpose: Animal studies have demonstrated anti-inflammatory, and anti-nociceptive properties of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT). However, physiological data are scarce in humans. In a recent experimental study, the authors used the burn injury (BI) model observing a decrease in secondary hyperalgesia area (SHA) in the HBOT-group compared to a control-group.Surprisingly, a long-lasting neuroplasticity effect mitigating the BI-induced SHA-response was seen in the HBOT-preconditioned group. The objective of the present study, therefore, was to confirm our previous findings using an examiner-blinded, block-randomized, controlled, crossover study design. Patients and methods: Nineteen healthy subjects attended two BI-sessions with an inter-session interval of ≥28 days. The BIs were induced on the lower legs by a contact thermode (12.5 cm2, 47C°, 420 s). The subjects were block-randomized to receive HBOT (2.4 ATA, 100% O2, 90 min) or ambient conditions ([AC]; 1 ATA, 21% O2), dividing cohorts equally into two sequence allocations: HBOT-AC or AC-HBOT. All sensory assessments performed during baseline, BI, and post-intervention phases were at homologous time points irrespective of sequence allocation. The primary outcome was SHA, comparing interventions and sequence allocations. Data are mean (95% CI). Results: During HBOT-sessions a mitigating effect on SHAs was demonstrated compared to AC-sessions, ie, 18.8 (10.5–27.0) cm2 vs 32.0 (20.1–43.9) cm2 (P=0.021), respectively. In subjects allocated to the sequence AC-HBOT a significantly larger mean difference in SHA in the AC-session vs the HBOT-session was seen 25.0 (5.4–44.7) cm2 (P=0.019). In subjects allocated to the reverse sequence, HBOT-AC, no difference in SHA between sessions was observed (P=0.55), confirming a preconditioning, long-lasting (≥28 days) effect of HBOT. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that a single HBOT-session compared to control is associated with both acute and long-lasting mitigating effects on BI-induced SHA, confirming central anti-inflammatory, neuroplasticity effects of hyperbaric oxygen therapy.
Data from: Sharing of clinical trial data and results reporting practices among large pharmaceutical companies: cross sectional descriptive study and pilot of a tool to improve company practices
Objectives: To develop and pilot a tool to measure and improve pharmaceutical companies' clinical trial data sharing policies and practices. Design: Cross sectional descriptive analysis. Setting: Large pharmaceutical companies with novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015. Data sources: Data sharing measures were adapted from 10 prominent data sharing guidelines from expert bodies and refined through a multi-stakeholder deliberative process engaging patients, industry, academics, regulators, and others. Data sharing practices and policies were assessed using data from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA, corporate websites, data sharing platforms and registries (eg, the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project and Clinical Study Data Request (CSDR)), and personal communication with drug companies. Main outcome measures: Company level, multicomponent measure of accessibility of participant level clinical trial data (eg, analysis ready dataset and metadata); drug and trial level measures of registration, results reporting, and publication; company level overall transparency rankings; and feasibility of the measures and ranking tool to improve company data sharing policies and practices. Results: Only 25% of large pharmaceutical companies fully met the data sharing measure. The median company data sharing score was 63% (interquartile range 58-85%). Given feedback and a chance to improve their policies to meet this measure, three companies made amendments, raising the percentage of companies in full compliance to 33% and the median company data sharing score to 80% (73-100%). The most common reasons companies did not initially satisfy the data sharing measure were failure to share data by the specified deadline (75%) and failure to report the number and outcome of their data requests. Across new drug applications, a median of 100% (interquartile range 91-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 65% (36-96%) reported results, 45% (30-84%) were published, and 95% (69-100%) were publicly available in some form by six months after FDA drug approval. When examining results on the drug level, less than half (42%) of reviewed drugs had results for all their new drug applications trials in patients publicly available in some form by six months after FDA approval. Conclusions: It was feasible to develop a tool to measure data sharing policies and practices among large companies and have an impact in improving company practices. Among large companies, 25% made participant level trial data accessible to external investigators for new drug approvals in accordance with the current study's measures; this proportion improved to 33% after applying the ranking tool. Other measures of trial transparency were higher. Some companies, however, have substantial room for improvement on transparency and data sharing of clinical trials.
Data from: Agreements between industry and academia on publication rights: a retrospective study of protocols and publications of randomized clinical trials
Background: Little is known about publication agreements between industry and academic investigators in trial protocols and the consistency of these agreements with corresponding statements in publications. We aimed to investigate (i) the existence and types of publication agreements in trial protocols, (ii) the completeness and consistency of the reporting of these agreements in subsequent publications, and (iii) the frequency of co-authorship by industry employees. Methods and Findings: We used a retrospective cohort of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) based on archived protocols approved by six research ethics committees between 13 January 2000 and 25 November 2003. Only RCTs with industry involvement were eligible. We investigated the documentation of publication agreements in RCT protocols and statements in corresponding journal publications. Of 647 eligible RCT protocols, 456 (70.5%) mentioned an agreement regarding publication of results. Of these 456, 393 (86.2%) documented an industry partner's right to disapprove or at least review proposed manuscripts; 39 (8.6%) agreements were without constraints of publication. The remaining 24 (5.3%) protocols referred to separate agreement documents not accessible to us. Of those 432 protocols with an accessible publication agreement, 268 (62.0%) trials were published. Most agreements documented in the protocol were not reported in the subsequent publication (197/268 [73.5%]). Of 71 agreements reported in publications, 52 (73.2%) were concordant with those documented in the protocol. In 14 of 37 (37.8%) publications in which statements suggested unrestricted publication rights, at least one co-author was an industry employee. In 25 protocol-publication pairs, author statements in publications suggested no constraints, but 18 corresponding protocols documented restricting agreements. Conclusions: Publication agreements constraining academic authors' independence are common. Journal articles seldom report on publication agreements, and, if they do, statements can be discrepant with the trial protocol.
Data from: Refining eligibility criteria for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis clinical trials
Objective: To assess the effect of eligibility criteria on exclusion rates, generalizability and outcome heterogeneity in ALS clinical trials, and to assess the value of a risk-based inclusion criterion. Methods: A literature search was performed to summarize eligibility criteria of clinical trials. The extracted criteria were applied to an incidence cohort of 2,904 consecutive ALS patients to quantify their effects on generalizability and outcome heterogeneity. We evaluated the effect of a risk-based selection approach on trial design using a personalized survival prediction model. Results: We identified 38 trials: enrolled patients reveal a large variability between trials of all patient characteristics (p < 0.001), except for the proportion of males (p = 0.21). Exclusion rates varied widely (from 14% to 95%; mean 59.8% (95% CI 52.6-66.7)). Stratification of the eligible populations into prognostic subgroups showed that eligibility criteria lead to exclusion of patients in all prognostic groups. Eligibility criteria neither reduce heterogeneity in survival time (from 22.0 to 20.5 months, p = 0.09) nor affect between-patient variability in functional decline (from 0.62 to 0.65, p = 0.25). In none of the 38 trials were the eligibility criteria found to be more efficient than the prediction model in optimizing sample size and eligibility rate. Conclusions: The majority of ALS patients are excluded from trial participation, which questions the generalizability of trial results. Importantly, eligibility criteria only minimally improve homogeneity in trial endpoints. An individualized risk-based criterion could be used to balance the gains in trial design and loss in generalizability.
Data from: Adjunctive use of modified Yunu-Jian in the non-surgical treatment of male smokers with chronic periodontitis: a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial
Background: Yunu-Jian (YJ) is a Chinese medicine (CM) heat purging formula, which is used to reduce wei huo (stomach-heat, SH) and enrich shen yin (kidney-yin, KY). This formula is also commonly used to manage diabetes mellitus and gum/oral inflammation. The activity of YJ can be modified or refined by the addition of other CM herbs and/or minor changes to one of its five key ingredients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the adjunctive use of modified YJ (mYJ) or YJ containing additional osteoblast-stimulating and inflammation-modulating CM herbs in the non-surgical periodontal treatment of smokers with chronic periodontitis in a randomized, double-blind, prospective, placebo-controlled study. Methods: Healthy adult male smokers with untreated chronic periodontitis who showed CM syndrome of SH and KY deficiency (KYD) whilst attending a dental teaching hospital from October to December, 2005, were invited to participate in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. The trial itself involved the once-daily oral administration of a placebo or mYJ for 3 months as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy. Several periodontal parameters, including radiographic alveolar bone density, were measured by computer-assisted densitometric image analysis (CADIA) on selected sites, and CM signs of SH and KYD were followed from their baseline values to various time points up to 12 months or the end of study. Results: Twenty-five smokers (consumed 25.0 ± 15.3 smoking-pack years, ranged 7.5–80; aged 46.3 ± 6.8 years) with periodontitis and SH and KYD were recruited (Placebo, n = 14; mYJ, n = 11). All of the participants showed good tolerance towards the CM recipe. All of the periodontal parameters had improved after 12-month follow-up, and no statistically significant differences were detected between the control group and test group, except for the higher CADIA values observed compared with the baseline at 12 months for test sites (P = 0.025). 4/3/3 test vs 14/13/13 control participants had persisting SH and KYD at 6, 9 and 12 months (P < 0.001), respectively. Conclusions: The adjunctive use of mYJ preserved the post-treatment increases in the radiographic alveolar bone density at the study sites and led to an overall improvement in SH and KYD compared with the controls.
Data from: Sharing of clinical trial data among trialists: a cross sectional survey
Objective: To investigate clinical trialists' opinions and experiences of sharing of clinical trial data with investigators who are not directly collaborating with the research team. Design and setting: Cross sectional, web based survey. Participants: Clinical trialists who were corresponding authors of clinical trials published in 2010 or 2011 in one of six general medical journals with the highest impact factor in 2011. Main outcome measures: Support for and prevalence of data sharing through data repositories and in response to individual requests, concerns with data sharing through repositories, and reasons for granting or denying requests. Results: Of 683 potential respondents, 317 completed the survey (response rate 46%). In principle, 236 (74%) thought that sharing de-identified data through data repositories should be required, and 229 (72%) thought that investigators should be required to share de-identified data in response to individual requests. In practice, only 56 (18%) indicated that they were required by the trial funder to deposit the trial data in a repository; of these 32 (57%) had done so. In all, 149 respondents (47%) had received an individual request to share their clinical trial data; of these, 115 (77%) had granted and 56 (38%) had denied at least one request. Respondents' most common concerns about data sharing were related to appropriate data use, investigator or funder interests, and protection of research subjects. Conclusions: We found strong support for sharing clinical trial data among corresponding authors of recently published trials in high impact general medical journals who responded to our survey, including a willingness to share data, although several practical concerns were identified.
AACT clinical trial files
<p>The file provided here was freely downloaded from https://aact.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/.</p>
Effectiveness of a multidisciplinary approach to prevent falls and gait impairment in patients with Parkinson's disease: A randomized, longitudinal clinical trial.
<p>This graph describes the <span>short and long-term effectiveness of a multidisciplinary telemedicine program in addition to in-office usual care in non-demented patients with PD at risk for falling.</span></p>
DIAeT - Synthesizing Evidence from Clinical Trials with Dynamic Interactive Argument Trees
<p>Synthesizing Evidence from Clinical Trials with Dynamic Interactive Argument Trees</p>
Clinical Trial Investigational Product Management System (CTIPMS)
<p>CTIPMS adopts the central management model, which is managed by qualified personnel designated by the CTI. Through the organic combination of stock management, prescription management, label management, and intelligent detection, closed-loop management of the entire process of trial investigational products is realized.</p>
Clinical Trial Ethical Management System (CTEMS)
<p>The main features of CTEMS include EC management, ethics review management, and ethics conference management, which manages the continuous ethics review of study projects by the EC, including initial protocol review, protocol amendment review, SAE report and review, and violation/deviation protocol review.</p>
Clinical Trial Project Management System (CTPMS)
<p>The main features of CTPMS include project approval management, to-do task list, project list, document management, contract management, initial meeting management, investigator management, and CRC management. Through the organic combination of these features, the CTI realizes the project approval review and daily management of study projects.</p>
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.