ArticleTrials2025
Tolerating bad health research (part 2): still as many bad trials, but more good ones too.
Article in Trials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Relative Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Second- or Later-Line Treatments for Advanced and Metastatic Gastric Cancer: A Rapid Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Pooled it
- International Stakeholder Guidance for Improving Informativeness of Randomized Clinical Trials.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Reducing selection bias risk to enhance RCT validity: sandwich mixed randomization outperforms permuted block design.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Article
- Correction: Tolerating bad health research (part 2): still as many bad trials, but more good ones too.Trials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe previously published a study examining the risk of bias of a random selection of Cochrane systematic reviews. The purpose of our current study is to reassess the risk of bias of a cohort of Cochrane reviewed trials to see if our reassessment differs from the original Cochrane assessment and to determine whether the funder, having methodological support, or involving a statistician affected the risk of bias.
methodsWe extracted data from 140 of 159 included trials from three countries, the UK, Canada, and Ireland, in our original cohort. The 19 remaining trials were excluded for a variety of reasons. We recorded the number of participants in the trial, the funder, if a statistician was involved in the trial, if there was any methodological support from a trials unit or clinical research facility, the sponsor, and whether the sponsor was involved in the design or conduct of the trial. The risk of bias of the 140 trials was re-assessed using the same tool as that used by the Cochrane authors.
resultsOur judgement of overall high risk of bias was broadly consistent with the original Cochrane authors. The proportion of high risk of bias trials remained more or less where it was at 55%, but the proportion of low risk of bias trials increased from 9 to 16%. The proportion of unclear risk of bias trials changed accordingly. Compared to the original assessments, we judged more studies to be low risk of bias across all domains. The greatest variation was in the two blinding categories (participants and personnel; outcome assessor) and 'other bias'.
conclusionsMore than half of trials in our UK, Canada, and Ireland cohort were at high risk of bias highlighting significant challenges in ensuring the integrity and reliability of research findings. Addressing bias in clinical trials is essential to uphold the credibility of scientific research and to ensure that healthcare interventions are based on sound evidence, ultimately improving patient outcomes.
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.