Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41916628›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Investigating the impact of problematic evidence on clinical practice guidelines and associated patient outcomes (VITALITY Study II): protocol.

Chang Xu, Luis Furuya Kanamori, Hong Cao, Xinyi Wang, Yoon K Loke, Sheyu Li, Tianmeng Wen, Shiqi Fan, Zhichun Gu, Jennifer C Stone and 16 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

26 authors.

Chang XuProof of Concept Center, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China xuchang2016@runbox.com sdoi@qu.edu.qa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2627-1250
Luis Furuya KanamoriThe University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia.
Hong CaoSchool of Pharmacy, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xinyi WangChinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center (Cochrane China Center), West Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yoon K LokeNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Sheyu LiWest China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0060-0287
Tianmeng WenEpidemiology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Beijing, China.
Shiqi FanProof of Concept Center, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zhichun GuDepartment of Pharmacy, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Jennifer C StoneThe University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Lifeng LinDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, The University of Arizona Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, Tucson, Arizona, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3562-9816
Zuhaer YishaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Peking University, Beijing, China.
Ioana Alina CristeaDepartment of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Liang DuChinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center (Cochrane China Center), West Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Justin ClarkCentre for Research in Evidence Based Practice, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0133-1613
Zongshi QinClinical Research Institute, Institute of Advanced Clinical Medicine, Peking University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Yang SongSchool of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China.
Linan ZengDepartment of Pharmacy, Evidence-Based Pharmacy Centre, NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research on Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Sichuan University West China Second University Hospital, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Zhaohu FanScheller College of Business, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Su GolderDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8987-5211
Haitao ChuDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
M Hassan MuradEvidence-Based Practice Center, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5502-5975
Houwen LinDepartment of Pharmacy, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, China.
Ben W MolDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8337-550X
Sunita VohraDepartment of Pediatrics and Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Suhail A DoiDepartment of Population Medicine, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar xuchang2016@runbox.com sdoi@qu.edu.qa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIncreasing publication of fraudulent clinical trials poses a serious threat to evidence-based medicine. In the VITALITY Study I, we demonstrated that contamination by retracted trials significantly distorts evidence synthesis. The upcoming VITALITY Study II will take a step further and investigate how such problematic evidence undermines the credibility of guideline recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The VITALITY Study II will adopt a retrospective cohort design and will be structured as three work packages (WPs). To start with, a cohort of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) that were contaminated by retracted trials and/or meta-analyses that included retracted trials will be established based on forward citation searching (WP1). Then, recommendations from these CPGs that used evidence from retracted trials and/or meta-analyses that synthesised these retracted trials will be re-evaluated after removing such problematic evidence, in terms of both the direction and strength of effect sizes (WP2). Finally, the subsequent impact on patient outcomes attributable to distorted recommendations will be estimated on a hypothetical population, measured by the number of expected benefit loss and the number of expected harm increment per 100 000 patients (WP3). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not necessary for this study as it does not involve human or animal participants, nor does it involve the collection of primary data. We will disseminate the findings through publication in peer-reviewed journals and, whenever possible, presentations at academic conferences.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicEvidence-Based MedicinePractice Guidelines as TopicScientific MisconductHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignRetrospective StudiesClinical Decision-MakingEPIDEMIOLOGYGuideline AdherenceHealth Impact AssessmentQuality in health careSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID41916628
PMCPMC13052600

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.