Browsing by Author "Igaz, Peter (6603935318)"

Objective: Individual patients' data sharing requires interoperability, security, ethical, and legal compliance. The aim was to assess the landscape and sharing capacities between endocrine researchers. Design: A standardized survey (SurveyMonkey®) with 67 questions was sent to European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors centers. Methods: Answers were counted as absolute numbers and percentages. Comparisons between inclusiveness target countries (ITC) and non-ITC (defined by Cooperation in Science & Technology Action) were performed using Fisher's exact test. Results: Seventy-three centers from 34 countries answered the survey. Electronic health record (EHR) systems are now the main source of data (90%). However, significant variability was reported, entailing >35 EHR providers, and variable data collected. Variable stakeholders' implication for enabling data sharing was reported, with more lawyers (P = .023), patient representatives (P < .001), ethicists (P = .002), methodologists (P = .023), and information technology experts (P < .001) in non-ITC centers. Implication of information technologies experts for data collection and sharing was underwhelming (33%). Funding for clinical research was higher in non-ITC than in ITC for clinical trials (P = .01) and for registry-based and cohort studies (P = .05). However, for retrospective studies addressing a specific clinical question, the funding was either very low (<10%) or nonexistent for both ITC and non-ITC (37% and 46%, respectively), with no dedicated funding for information technology (86%) and ethical and regulatory aspects (88%). Conclusions: In the absence of dedicated funding for retrospective research, current requirements for data sharing are obstacles. © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Endocrinology.

Objective: Individual patients' data sharing requires interoperability, security, ethical, and legal compliance. The aim was to assess the landscape and sharing capacities between endocrine researchers. Design: A standardized survey (SurveyMonkey®) with 67 questions was sent to European Network for the Study of Adrenal Tumors centers. Methods: Answers were counted as absolute numbers and percentages. Comparisons between inclusiveness target countries (ITC) and non-ITC (defined by Cooperation in Science & Technology Action) were performed using Fisher's exact test. Results: Seventy-three centers from 34 countries answered the survey. Electronic health record (EHR) systems are now the main source of data (90%). However, significant variability was reported, entailing >35 EHR providers, and variable data collected. Variable stakeholders' implication for enabling data sharing was reported, with more lawyers (P = .023), patient representatives (P < .001), ethicists (P = .002), methodologists (P = .023), and information technology experts (P < .001) in non-ITC centers. Implication of information technologies experts for data collection and sharing was underwhelming (33%). Funding for clinical research was higher in non-ITC than in ITC for clinical trials (P = .01) and for registry-based and cohort studies (P = .05). However, for retrospective studies addressing a specific clinical question, the funding was either very low (<10%) or nonexistent for both ITC and non-ITC (37% and 46%, respectively), with no dedicated funding for information technology (86%) and ethical and regulatory aspects (88%). Conclusions: In the absence of dedicated funding for retrospective research, current requirements for data sharing are obstacles. © The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Endocrinology.