Literature DB >> 15911467

The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey.

Sanaa Al-Marzouki1, Ian Roberts, Tom Marshall, Stephen Evans.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To discover what types of scientific misconduct are most likely to influence the results of a clinical trial.
DESIGN: Delphi survey of expert opinion with three rounds of consultation.
SETTING: Non-industry clinical trial "community". PARTICIPANTS: Experts identified from invitees to a previous MRC consultation on clinical trials. 32 out of the 40 experts approached agreed to participate.
RESULTS: We identified thirteen forms of scientific misconduct for which there was majority agreement (>50%) that they would be likely or very likely to distort the results and majority agreement (>50%) that they would be likely or very likely to occur. Of these, the over-interpretation of 'significant' findings in small trials, selective reporting and inappropriate subgroup analyses were the main themes.
CONCLUSIONS: According to this expert group, the most important forms of scientific misconduct in clinical trials are selective reporting and the opportunistic use of the play of chance. Data fabrication and falsification were not rated highly because it was considered that these were unlikely to occur. Registration and publication of detailed clinical trial protocols could make an important contribution to preventing scientific misconduct.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15911467     DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2005.01.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials        ISSN: 1551-7144            Impact factor:   2.226


  13 in total

Review 1.  From Protocols to Publications: A Study in Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials in Oncology.

Authors:  Kanwal Pratap Singh Raghav; Sminil Mahajan; James C Yao; Brian P Hobbs; Donald A Berry; Rebecca D Pentz; Alda Tam; Waun K Hong; Lee M Ellis; James Abbruzzese; Michael J Overman
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 44.544

2.  Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research.

Authors:  Raymond de Vries; Melissa S Anderson; Brian C Martinson
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion.

Authors:  Ralitsa B Akins; Homer Tolson; Bryan R Cole
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2005-12-01       Impact factor: 4.615

4.  Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.

Authors:  Isabelle Boutron; Philippe Ravaud
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-13       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Patient safety requires a new way to publish clinical trials.

Authors:  Richard Smith; Ian Roberts
Journal:  PLoS Clin Trials       Date:  2006-05

6.  Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention.

Authors:  Clément Lazarus; Romana Haneef; Philippe Ravaud; Isabelle Boutron
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern.

Authors:  Ashwaria Gupta
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2013-04

8.  Empirical evidence for outcome reporting bias in randomized clinical trials of acupuncture: comparison of registered records and subsequent publications.

Authors:  Chun-Xiang Su; Mei Han; Jun Ren; Wen-Yuan Li; Shu-Jin Yue; Yu-Fang Hao; Jian-Ping Liu
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-01-27       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News.

Authors:  Romana Haneef; Clement Lazarus; Philippe Ravaud; Amélie Yavchitz; Isabelle Boutron
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Social-cognitive barriers to ethical authorship.

Authors:  Jordan R Schoenherr
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.