- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data
- The role of authors of systematic reviews in exposing research misconduct
Ref ID | 218 |
First Author | V. Vlassov |
Journal | BAHRAIN MEDICAL BULLETIN |
Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
URL | https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed12&AN=361868658 |
Keywords |
Cochrane Misconduct General medical |
Problem(s) |
Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data |
Number of systematic reviews included | 4372 |
Summary of Findings | From the authors analysis of the Cochrane Library to review current practice up to July 2010, only five Cochrane reviews of 4372 mentioned data fabrication and two reported data falsification. The authors highlight that there is no guidance on how to report misconduct within the reviews or on how and when to contact editors of primary journals, and review authors have no resources to investigate or refer cases. The authors posit that it is time for the Cochrane Collaboration to update its Handbook and Policy Manual by adding guidance on detecting and reporting misconduct in primary studies within Cochrane reviews. |
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 |