- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
- How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors
| 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 |
Transparency Grey literature Misconduct General medical |
| 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 |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 118 |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 118 included systematic reviews, unpublished trials were searched in 66%.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. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |