Damen Johanna A, Heus Pauline, Lamberink Herm J, Tijdink Joeri K, Bouter Lex, Glasziou Paul, Moher David, Otte Willem M, Vinkers Christiaan H, Hooft Lotty
Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Feb;154:23-32. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.020. Epub 2022 Dec 2.
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.
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.
We included 163,129 RCT publications. The median probability of bias assessed using Robot Reviewer software ranged between 43% and 63% for the four risk of bias domains. A more recent publication year, trial registration, mentioning of CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials-checklist, and a higher journal impact factor were consistently associated with a lower risk of QRPs.
This comprehensive analysis provides an 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.
探讨随机对照试验(RCT)中以下可疑研究行为(QRP)的指标:(1)四个领域的偏倚风险(随机序列生成、分配隐藏、参与者和人员的盲法以及结果评估的盲法);(2)对试验注册记录中登记的主要结局的修改(选择性报告偏倚的代理指标);(3)实际样本量与计划样本量的比例;(4)统计差异。
自动识别1996 - 2017年发表于PubMed的所有人类RCT全文,并自动收集信息。QRP的潜在指标包括作者特定、发表特定和期刊特定特征。使用贝塔、逻辑和线性回归模型来识别这些潜在指标与QRP之间的关联。
我们纳入了163,129篇RCT出版物。使用机器人评审软件评估的四个偏倚风险领域的偏倚中位数概率在43%至63%之间。更近的发表年份、试验注册、提及《报告试验的统一标准》清单以及更高的期刊影响因子始终与较低的QRP风险相关。
这项综合分析提供了对QRP指标的见解。研究人员应意识到作者团队和发表的某些特征与较高的QRP风险相关。