A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: stage 1 of the INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews project

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform health-care decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesize all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2024-11, Vol.175, p.111512, Article 111512
Hauptverfasser: Wilkinson, Jack, Heal, Calvin, Antoniou, George A., Flemyng, Ella, Avenell, Alison, Barbour, Virginia, Bordewijk, Esmee M., Brown, Nicholas J.L., Clarke, Mike, Dumville, Jo, Grohmann, Steph, Gurrin, Lyle C., Hayden, Jill A., Hunter, Kylie E., Lam, Emily, Lasserson, Toby, Li, Tianjing, Lensen, Sarah, Liu, Jianping, Lundh, Andreas, Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon, Mol, Ben W., O'Connell, Neil E., Parker, Lisa, Redman, Barbara, Seidler, Anna Lene, Sheldrick, Kyle, Sydenham, Emma, Dahly, Darren L., van Wely, Madelon, Bero, Lisa, Kirkham, Jamie J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) inform health-care decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesize all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these ‘problematic studies’ are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of health care-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of ‘checks’ to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorized these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.
ISSN:0895-4356
1878-5921
1878-5921
DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111512