Birol Tilki1, Thomas Schulenberg1, Steve Canham2, Rita Banzi3, Wolfgang Kuchinke1, Christian Ohmann4. 1. Coordination Centre for Clinical Trials, Heinrich-Heine-University, Düsseldorf, Nordrhine-Westfalia, 40225, Germany. 2. European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network, ECRIN, Redhill, Surrey, RH1 6QH, UK. 3. Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, IRCCS, Milan, 20156, Italy. 4. European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network, ECRIN, Düsseldorf, Nordrhine-Westfalia, 40477, Germany.
Abstract
Background: Given the increasing number and heterogeneity of data repositories, an improvement and harmonisation of practice within repositories for clinical trial data is urgently needed. The objective of the study was to develop and evaluate a demonstrator repository, using a widely used repository system (DSpace), and then explore its suitability for providing access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical research. Methods: After a study of the available options, DSpace (version 6.3) was selected as the software for developing a demonstrator implementation of a repository for clinical trial data. In total, 19 quality criteria were defined, using previous work assessing clinical data repositories as a guide, and the demonstrator implementation was then assessed with respect to those criteria. Results: Generally, the performance of the DSpace demonstrator repository in supporting sensitive personal data such as that from clinical trials was strong, with 14 requirements demonstrated (74%), including the necessary support for metadata and identifiers. Two requirements could not be demonstrated (the ability to include de-identification tools and the availabiltiy of a self-attestation system) and three requirements were only partially demonstrated (ability to provide links to de-identification tools and requirements, incorporation of a data transfer agreement in system workflow, and capability to offer managed access through application on a case by case basis). Conclusions: Technically, the system was able to support most of the pre-defined requirements, though there are areas where support could be improved. Of course, in a productive repository, appropriate policies and procedures would be needed to direct the use of the available technical features. A technical evaluation should therefore be seen as indicating a system's potential, rather than being a definite assessment of its suitability. DSpace clearly has considerable potential in this context and appears a suitable base for further exploration of the issues around storing sensitive data. Copyright:
Background: Given the increasing number and heterogeneity of data repositories, an improvement and harmonisation of practice within repositories for clinical trial data is urgently needed. The objective of the study was to develop and evaluate a demonstrator repository, using a widely used repository system (DSpace), and then explore its suitability for providing access to individual participant data (IPD) from clinical research. Methods: After a study of the available options, DSpace (version 6.3) was selected as the software for developing a demonstrator implementation of a repository for clinical trial data. In total, 19 quality criteria were defined, using previous work assessing clinical data repositories as a guide, and the demonstrator implementation was then assessed with respect to those criteria. Results: Generally, the performance of the DSpace demonstrator repository in supporting sensitive personal data such as that from clinical trials was strong, with 14 requirements demonstrated (74%), including the necessary support for metadata and identifiers. Two requirements could not be demonstrated (the ability to include de-identification tools and the availabiltiy of a self-attestation system) and three requirements were only partially demonstrated (ability to provide links to de-identification tools and requirements, incorporation of a data transfer agreement in system workflow, and capability to offer managed access through application on a case by case basis). Conclusions: Technically, the system was able to support most of the pre-defined requirements, though there are areas where support could be improved. Of course, in a productive repository, appropriate policies and procedures would be needed to direct the use of the available technical features. A technical evaluation should therefore be seen as indicating a system's potential, rather than being a definite assessment of its suitability. DSpace clearly has considerable potential in this context and appears a suitable base for further exploration of the issues around storing sensitive data. Copyright:
Authors: Paul R Burton; Madeleine J Murtagh; Andy Boyd; James B Williams; Edward S Dove; Susan E Wallace; Anne-Marie Tassé; Julian Little; Rex L Chisholm; Amadou Gaye; Kristian Hveem; Anthony J Brookes; Pat Goodwin; Jon Fistein; Martin Bobrow; Bartha M Knoppers Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2015-06-25 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Rita Banzi; Steve Canham; Wolfgang Kuchinke; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Jacques Demotes-Mainard; Christian Ohmann Journal: Trials Date: 2019-03-15 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Dawei Lin; Jonathan Crabtree; Ingrid Dillo; Robert R Downs; Rorie Edmunds; David Giaretta; Marisa De Giusti; Hervé L'Hours; Wim Hugo; Reyna Jenkyns; Varsha Khodiyar; Maryann E Martone; Mustapha Mokrane; Vivek Navale; Jonathan Petters; Barbara Sierman; Dina V Sokolova; Martina Stockhause; John Westbrook Journal: Sci Data Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Mark D Wilkinson; Michel Dumontier; I Jsbrand Jan Aalbersberg; Gabrielle Appleton; Myles Axton; Arie Baak; Niklas Blomberg; Jan-Willem Boiten; Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos; Philip E Bourne; Jildau Bouwman; Anthony J Brookes; Tim Clark; Mercè Crosas; Ingrid Dillo; Olivier Dumon; Scott Edmunds; Chris T Evelo; Richard Finkers; Alejandra Gonzalez-Beltran; Alasdair J G Gray; Paul Groth; Carole Goble; Jeffrey S Grethe; Jaap Heringa; Peter A C 't Hoen; Rob Hooft; Tobias Kuhn; Ruben Kok; Joost Kok; Scott J Lusher; Maryann E Martone; Albert Mons; Abel L Packer; Bengt Persson; Philippe Rocca-Serra; Marco Roos; Rene van Schaik; Susanna-Assunta Sansone; Erik Schultes; Thierry Sengstag; Ted Slater; George Strawn; Morris A Swertz; Mark Thompson; Johan van der Lei; Erik van Mulligen; Jan Velterop; Andra Waagmeester; Peter Wittenburg; Katherine Wolstencroft; Jun Zhao; Barend Mons Journal: Sci Data Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 6.444
Authors: Christian Ohmann; Rita Banzi; Steve Canham; Serena Battaglia; Mihaela Matei; Christopher Ariyo; Lauren Becnel; Barbara Bierer; Sarion Bowers; Luca Clivio; Monica Dias; Christiane Druml; Hélène Faure; Martin Fenner; Jose Galvez; Davina Ghersi; Christian Gluud; Trish Groves; Paul Houston; Ghassan Karam; Dipak Kalra; Rachel L Knowles; Karmela Krleža-Jerić; Christine Kubiak; Wolfgang Kuchinke; Rebecca Kush; Ari Lukkarinen; Pedro Silverio Marques; Andrew Newbigging; Jennifer O'Callaghan; Philippe Ravaud; Irene Schlünder; Daniel Shanahan; Helmut Sitter; Dylan Spalding; Catrin Tudur-Smith; Peter van Reusel; Evert-Ben van Veen; Gerben Rienk Visser; Julia Wilson; Jacques Demotes-Mainard Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.692