How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A crosssectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors

BMJ Open

Volumn 6, Issue 3, 2016, Pages

  Elia, Nadia ^a,b   Von Elm, Erik ^c   Chatagner, Alexandra ^d   Pöpping, Daniel M ^e   Tramèr, Martin R ^a,b  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GENEVA   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^d Institute Guillaume Belluard   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL MÜNSTER   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; MALPRACTICE; MISCONDUCT; PUBLISHING; SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; LITERATURE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESEARCH; STANDARDS;

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; MALPRACTICE; PUBLICATION BIAS; RESEARCH; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84960430994     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010442     Document Type: Review

References (42)

1. Deer B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ 2011;342:c5347.
2. Bouri S, Shun-Shin MJ, Cole GD, et al. Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of α-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery. Heart 2014;100:456-64.
3. Krumholz HM, Ross JS, Presler AH, et al. What have we learnt from Vioxx? BMJ 2007;334:120.
4. Martinson BC, Anderson MS, De Vries R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature 2005;435:737-8.
5. Luscher TF. The codex of science: honesty, precision, and truth. and its violations. Eur Heart J 2013;34:1018-23.
6. Smith R. The COPE Report 2000. What is research misconduct? http://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/COPE2000pdfcomplete.pdf (accessed 26 Oct. 2015).
7. Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U, et al. Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ 2010;341:c4737.
8. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 2012;344:d7202.
9. Tramer MR, Reynolds DJ, Moore RA, et al. Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study. BMJ 1997;315:635-40.
10. Selph SS, Ginsburg AD, Chou R. Impact of contacting study authors to obtain additional data for systematic reviews: diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatic fibrosis. Syst Rev 2014;3:107.
11. Huss A, Egger M, Hug K, et al. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environ. Health Perspect 2007;115:1-4.
12. Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, et al. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001578.
13. Chan AW. Out of sight but not out of mind: how to search for unpublished clinical trial evidence. BMJ 2012;344:d8013.
14. Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315:629.
15. Von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, et al. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA 2004;291:974-80.
16. Weingarten MA, Paul M, Leibovici L. Assessing ethics of trials in systematic reviews. BMJ 2004;328:1013-14.
17. Vergnes JN, Marchal-Sixou C, Nabet C, et al. Ethics in systematic reviews. J Med Ethics 2010;36:771-4.
18. Vlassov V, Groves T. The role of Cochrane review authors in exposing research and publication misconduct. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;2011:ED000015. (accessed 26 Oct. 2015).
19. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet 2007;370:1453-7.
20. Tramer MR. The Boldt debacle. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011;28:393-5.
21. Kelley GA, Kelley KS, Tran ZV. Retrieval of missing data for meta-analysis: apractical example. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:296-9.
22. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 2008;5:e217; discussion e217.
23. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, et al. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252-60.
24. Hopewell S, Loudon K, Clarke MJ, et al. Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;(1): MR000006.
25. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, et al. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(1): MR000031.
26. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, Von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2): MR000005.
27. Doshi P, Dickersin K, Healy D, et al. Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings. BMJ 2013;346:f2865.
28. Wager E, Elia N. Why should clinical trials be registered? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014;31:397-400.
29. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Ryan G, et al. Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses? Current convictions and controversies. JAMA 1993;269:2749-53.
30. Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, et al. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004;291:2457-65.
31. Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ 2005;330:753.
32. Mullan RJ, Flynn DN, Carlberg B, et al. Systematic reviewers commonly contact study authors but do so with limited rigor. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:138-42.
33. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:MR000033. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858. MR000033.pub2/abstract (accessed 26 Oct. 2015).
34. Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, et al. Evidence b (i) ased medicine.selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 2003;326:1171-3.
35. Vedula SS, Li T, Dickersin K. Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001378.
36. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:454-65.
37. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
38. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349:g7647.
39. MECIR reporting standards now finalized | Cochrane Community (beta). http://community.cochrane.org/news/tags/authors/mecir-reporting-standards-now-finalized (accessed 26 Oct. 2015).
40. Marret E, Elia N, Dahl JB, et al. Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case. Anesthesiology 2009;111:1279-89.
41. Habre C, Tramèr MR, Pöpping DM, et al. Ability of a meta-analysis to prevent redundant research: systematic review of studies on pain from propofol injection. BMJ 2014;349:g5219.
42. Elia N, Wager E, Tramèr MR. Fate of articles that warranted retraction due to ethical concerns: a descriptive cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e85846.