Article Text

PDF

How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
  1. Nadia Elia1,2,
  2. Erik von Elm3,
  3. Alexandra Chatagner4,
  4. Daniel M Pöpping5,
  5. Martin R Tramèr1,6
  1. 1Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland
  2. 2Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  3. 3Cochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland
  4. 4Institute Guillaume Belluard, Cran Gevrier, France
  5. 5Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany
  6. 6Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nadia Elia; nadia.elia{at}hcuge.ch

Abstract

Objectives To study whether systematic reviewers apply procedures to counter-balance some common forms of research malpractice such as not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes, and to see whether they identify and report misconduct.

Design Cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.

Participants 118 systematic reviews published in four journals (Ann Int Med, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet), and the Cochrane Library, in 2013.

Main outcomes and measures Number (%) of reviews that applied procedures to reduce the impact of: (1) publication bias (through searching of unpublished trials), (2) selective outcome reporting (by contacting the authors of the original studies), (3) duplicate publications, (4) sponsors’ and (5) authors’ conflicts of interest, on the conclusions of the review, and (6) looked for ethical approval of the studies. Number (%) of reviewers who suspected misconduct are reported. The procedures applied were compared across journals.

Results 80 (68%) reviewers confirmed their data. 59 (50%) reviews applied three or more procedures; 11 (9%) applied none. Unpublished trials were searched in 79 (66%) reviews. Authors of original studies were contacted in 73 (62%). Duplicate publications were searched in 81 (69%). 27 reviews (23%) reported sponsors of the included studies; 6 (5%) analysed their impact on the conclusions of the review. Five reviews (4%) looked at conflicts of interest of study authors; none of them analysed their impact. Three reviews (2.5%) looked at ethical approval of the studies. Seven reviews (6%) suspected misconduct; only 2 (2%) reported it explicitly. Procedures applied differed across the journals.

Conclusions Only half of the systematic reviews applied three or more of the six procedures examined. Sponsors, conflicts of interest of authors and ethical approval remain overlooked. Research misconduct is sometimes identified, but rarely reported. Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed.

  • systematic review
  • misconduct
  • ETHICS (see Medical Ethics)

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.