Literature DB >> 25664866

Research misconduct identified by the US Food and Drug Administration: out of sight, out of mind, out of the peer-reviewed literature.

Charles Seife1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature.
OBJECTIVES: To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: For each inspection document that could be linked to a specific published clinical trial, the main measure was a yes/no determination of whether there was mention in the peer-reviewed literature of problems the FDA had identified.
RESULTS: Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25664866     DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7774

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  16 in total

Review 1.  Stroke and thromboembolism prevention in atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Sina Jame; Geoffrey Barnes
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 5.994

Review 2.  Ethical publishing in intensive care medicine: A narrative review.

Authors:  Christian J Wiedermann
Journal:  World J Crit Care Med       Date:  2016-08-04

3.  Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Simon Godecharle; Benoit Nemery; Kris Dierickx
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Why published research is untrustworthy.

Authors:  Gunnar Lose; Niels Klarskov
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 2.894

5.  Increasing vaccination rates requires a better understanding of vaccine hesitancy.

Authors:  Joshua P Bennett
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2019-10-21       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 6.  Reducing The Risk Of Stroke In Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation With Direct Oral Anticoagulants. Is One Of These Not Like The Others?

Authors:  Paul P Dobesh; John Fanikos
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2016-08-31

Review 7.  Evaluation of the Inclusion of Studies Identified by the FDA as Having Falsified Data in the Results of Meta-analyses: The Example of the Apixaban Trials.

Authors:  Craig A Garmendia; Liliana Nassar Gorra; Ana Lucia Rodriguez; Mary Jo Trepka; Emir Veledar; Purnima Madhivanan
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2019-04-01       Impact factor: 21.873

8.  Ignoring instead of chasing after coagulation factor VII during warfarin management: an interrupted time series study.

Authors:  Alma R Oskarsdottir; Brynja R Gudmundsdottir; Hulda M Jensdottir; Bjorn Flygenring; Ragnar Palsson; Pall T Onundarson
Journal:  Blood       Date:  2021-05-20       Impact factor: 22.113

9.  A Perspective on the Principles of Integrity in Infectious Disease Research.

Authors:  Kevin T Kavanagh; Stephen S Tower; Daniel M Saman
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.844

10.  From P-Values to Objective Probabilities in Assessing Medical Treatments.

Authors:  David Kault; Sam Kault
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.