ArticleBMJ open2016
How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Reporting of conflicts of interest by authors of primary studies on health policy and systems research: a cross-sectional survey.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Determinants of eating patterns and nutrient intake among adolescent athletes: a systematic review.Nutrition journal · 2017Pooled it
- Ethical integrity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: challenges, pitfalls, and best practices in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Ethically Driven and Methodologically Tailored: Setting the Agenda for Systematic Reviews in Domestic Violence and Abuse.Journal of family violence · 2023Article
- Sexual Dysfunction in Infertile Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sexual medicine · 2022Review
- Effectiveness of exercise for osteosarcopenia in older adults: a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2021Article
- Motor performance and back pain in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Effects of Real-Time (Sonification) and Rhythmic Auditory Stimuli on Recovering Arm Function Post Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2018Article
- Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance.BMJ open · 2017Article
- The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias.PeerJ · 2017Article
- Cochrane: the unfinished symphony of research synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- How Do We Deal with Research Misconduct?Oman medical journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo study whether systematic reviewers apply procedures to counter-balance some common forms of research malpractice such as not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes, and to see whether they identify and report misconduct.
designCross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.
participants118 systematic reviews published in four journals (Ann Int Med, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet), and the Cochrane Library, in 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Number (%) of reviews that applied procedures to reduce the impact of: (1) publication bias (through searching of unpublished trials), (2) selective outcome reporting (by contacting the authors of the original studies), (3) duplicate publications, (4) sponsors' and (5) authors' conflicts of interest, on the conclusions of the review, and (6) looked for ethical approval of the studies. Number (%) of reviewers who suspected misconduct are reported. The procedures applied were compared across journals.
results80 (68%) reviewers confirmed their data. 59 (50%) reviews applied three or more procedures; 11 (9%) applied none. Unpublished trials were searched in 79 (66%) reviews. Authors of original studies were contacted in 73 (62%). Duplicate publications were searched in 81 (69%). 27 reviews (23%) reported sponsors of the included studies; 6 (5%) analysed their impact on the conclusions of the review. Five reviews (4%) looked at conflicts of interest of study authors; none of them analysed their impact. Three reviews (2.5%) looked at ethical approval of the studies. Seven reviews (6%) suspected misconduct; only 2 (2%) reported it explicitly. Procedures applied differed across the journals.
conclusionsOnly half of the systematic reviews applied three or more of the six procedures examined. Sponsors, conflicts of interest of authors and ethical approval remain overlooked. Research misconduct is sometimes identified, but rarely reported. Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.