Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33040331›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesia2021

False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia.

J B Carlisle

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

63 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Oral misoprostol (PGE1) vs vaginal dinoprostone (PGE2) for labor induction: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Editorial commitment to trust and integrity in science: implications for pain and anesthesiology research.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025
    Article

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

J B CarlisleDepartment of Peri-operative Medicine and Anaesthesia, Torbay Hospital, Torquay, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0420-5241

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerned that studies contain false data, I analysed the baseline summary data of randomised controlled trials when they were submitted to Anaesthesia from February 2017 to March 2020. I categorised trials with false data as 'zombie' if I thought that the trial was fatally flawed. I analysed 526 submitted trials: 73 (14%) had false data and 43 (8%) I categorised zombie. Individual patient data increased detection of false data and categorisation of trials as zombie compared with trials without individual patient data: 67/153 (44%) false vs. 6/373 (2%) false; and 40/153 (26%) zombie vs. 3/373 (1%) zombie, respectively. The analysis of individual patient data was independently associated with false data (odds ratio (95% credible interval) 47 (17-144); p = 1.3 × 10

Indexed as

PublishingAnesthesiologyHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicScientific Misconductfabricationindividual patient datarandomised controlled trialsresearch misconductzombie

Identifiers

PMID33040331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.