Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39628711›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2024

Research Integrity in Guidelines and evIDence synthesis (RIGID): a framework for assessing research integrity in guideline development and evidence synthesis.

Aya Mousa, Madeline Flanagan, Chau Thien Tay, Robert J Norman, Michael Costello, Wentao Li, Rui Wang, Helena Teede, Ben W Mol

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Publishers' Response to Post-Publication Concerns About Clinical Research in Women's Health.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

9 authors.

Aya MousaMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Madeline FlanaganDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Chau Thien TayMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Robert J NormanRobinson Research Institute, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Michael CostelloUniversity of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.
Wentao LiDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Rui WangDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Helena TeedeMonash Centre for Health Research and Implementation (MCHRI), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines rely on sound evidence to underpin recommendations for patient care. Compromised research integrity can erode public trust and the credibility of the scientific enterprise, with potential harm to patients. Despite increased recognition of integrity concerns in scientific literature, there are no processes or guidance for incorporating integrity assessments into evidence-based guideline development or evidence synthesis more broadly. Methods: In response to this crucial gap, we developed the Findings: The six key steps of the RIGID framework are described, as follows: (1) Review: standard systematic review processes are followed, in line with approved evidence synthesis methodologies; (2) Exclude: studies which have been retracted are excluded, and those with expressions of concern are flagged for further evaluation; (3) Assess: remaining studies are assessed for integrity using an appropriate tool and allocated an initial integrity risk rating of low, moderate or high risk for integrity concerns; (4) Discuss: integrity assessment results are discussed among integrity committee members with votes to determine final integrity risk rating allocations for each study; (5) Establish contact: low risk studies are included without author contact, whereas authors of studies ranked as moderate or high risk are contacted for clarification; (6) Reassess: studies are reassessed for inclusion using the RIGID author response algorithm (reclassified as 'included' where authors have provided a satisfactory response, 'awaiting classification' where authors have engaged but time is needed to address concerns, or 'not included' where authors have not responded to contact attempts). An illustrative case study is presented, where these six steps of the RIGID framework were successfully implemented in an influential international guideline endorsed by 39 societies across six continents. Following implementation of the framework, 45 of the 101 originally identified studies (45%) were not included in the guideline. Interpretation: Based on the latest literature and international expertise, the RIGID framework represents an important advancement in best practice standards for guideline development and evidence synthesis. Using this resource, guideline developers, policy-makers, clinicians and scientists are better positioned to navigate the currently precarious research landscape to ensure evidence synthesis and subsequent clinical recommendations prioritize patient care and preserve the sanctity of scientific endeavors. Funding: This study received no specific funding. The guideline in which it was piloted was supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for guideline development through the Centre of Research Excellence (CRE) in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CRE-WHiRL) (APP1171592) and the CRE in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (CRE-PCOS) (APP1078444) led by Monash University, Australia, and partner societies: the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), the US Endocrine Society (ENDO), the European Society of Endocrinology (ESE) and the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE).

Indexed as

Clinical practice recommendationsEvidence-based guidelinesEvidence synthesisGuideline developmentResearch integrityRetraction

Identifiers

PMID39628711
PMCPMC11612463

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.