![]() ![]() If so, sharing of raw data is hardly the issue: commentaries and review articles relying purely on a trial's published results are often mistaken – indeed, one article discussing the results of a surgery trial similar to that discussed in anecdote 5 stated, wholly inaccurately, that patients had died as a result of surgery – and it seems more likely that raw data would improve subsequent commentary. It might be that the investigators were afraid that I might publish something that would misrepresent their findings. I was never given an explicit reason why any of my requests to obtain raw data were rejected, so I can only speculate. To share or not to share: guilty until proven innocent After a good deal of deliberation, the committee finally relented. This involved a subsequent 45 minute telephone conference during which we pointed out that: a) the results of our analysis had no clinical implications and were of interest purely to statisticians b) we would stress this point in any paper c) that the co-operative group would be sent any paper before submission and would have full veto power. After an extended discussion, he eventually allowed us to present our ideas to the appropriate committee. We approached an MSKCC physician who had a senior position in one of these groups. We needed a data set on which to test our method and thought that one of the large randomized trials conducted by the cancer co-operative groups might be appropriate. I developed a novel statistical method with a colleague at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC). Data sharing anecdote 3: data to test a novel statistical method ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |