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	• 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
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Summary of Findings	Of the 118 included systematic reviews, unpublished trials were searched in 66%.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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes