| Ref ID | 133 |
| First Author | N. Elia |
| Journal | BMJ OPEN |
| Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785311/pdf/bmjopen-2015-010442.pdf |
| Keywords |
• General medical • Misconduct • Grey literature • Transparency |
| Problem(s) |
• Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data • Financial conflicts of interest of review authors • Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed • Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • Grey literature excluded |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Switzerland |
| Checklists |
• AMSTAR 1 |
| Aim | To assess how systematic review authors apply procedures to counter 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. Published systematic review from four general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, The BMJ, JAMA and The Lancet plus a random sample from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 2013 were selected. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 118 included systematic reviews, unpublished trials were searched in 66%. Authors of original studies were contacted in 62%. 69% searched for duplicate publications. 23% reported sponsors of the included studies and 5% analysed the impact o sponsorship bias on the conclusions of the review. Only 4% reported conflicts of interest of included study authors; none of them analysed their impact. 2.5% looked at ethical approval of the included studies. 6% suspected misconduct but only 2% reported it explicitly. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 118 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 136 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |