Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35978325›Full record

ArticleTrials2022

Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher.

Daeria O Lawson, Michael K Wang, Kevin Kim, Rachel Eikelboom, Myanca Rodrigues, Daniela Trapsa, Lehana Thabane, David Moher

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Daeria O LawsonDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Michael K WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kevin KimDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Rachel EikelboomDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Myanca RodriguesDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Daniela TrapsaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Lehana ThabaneDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada. thabanl@mcmaster.ca.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues. MAIN TEXT: This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices.

conclusionDr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Indexed as

COVID-19CommunicationHumansPandemicsPublishingResearch PersonnelClinical trialsCollaborative researchEducationOpen sciencePublishingReporting guidelinesResearch integrity

Identifiers

PMID35978325
PMCPMC9383655

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.