TY - JOUR
T1 - Indicators of questionable research practices were identified in 163,129 randomized controlled trials
AU - Damen, Johanna A
AU - Heus, Pauline
AU - Lamberink, Herm J
AU - Tijdink, Joeri K
AU - Bouter, Lex
AU - Glasziou, Paul
AU - Moher, David
AU - Otte, Willem M
AU - Vinkers, Christiaan H
AU - Hooft, Lotty
N1 - Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2023/2/1
Y1 - 2023/2/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE: To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Full-texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996-2017 were automatically identified, and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs.RESULTS: We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using RobotReviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONSORT-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs.CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis provides insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs.
AB - OBJECTIVE: To explore indicators of the following questionable research practices (QRPs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): (1) risk of bias in four domains (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, and blinding of outcome assessment); (2) modifications in primary outcomes that were registered in trial registration records (proxy for selective reporting bias); (3) ratio of the achieved to planned sample sizes; and (4) statistical discrepancy.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Full-texts of all human RCTs published in PubMed in 1996-2017 were automatically identified, and information was collected automatically. Potential indicators of QRPs included author-specific, publication-specific, and journal-specific characteristics. Beta, logistic, and linear regression models were used to identify associations between these potential indicators and QRPs.RESULTS: We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using RobotReviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONSORT-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs.CONCLUSION: This comprehensive analysis provides insight into indicators of QRPs. Researchers should be aware that certain characteristics of the author team and publication are associated with a higher risk of QRPs.
KW - Bias
KW - Meta-research
KW - Questionable research
KW - RCT
KW - Responsible research
KW - Selective reporting
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85144993448&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85144993448&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36470577
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.020
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.020
M3 - Article
C2 - 36470577
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 154
SP - 23
EP - 32
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -