| Ref ID | 38 |
| First Author | E. Marret |
| Journal | ANESTHESIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2009 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19934873/ |
| Keywords |
• Misconduct • Retraction • Pain • Surgery |
| Problem(s) |
• Perpetuates citation of poor quality primary study data |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Meta-epidemiological analysis |
| First Author Country | Switzerland |
| Aim | To assess the impact of inclusion of falsified trials by Dr Scott Reuben on the conclusions of systematic reviews citing Reuben reports. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 25 systematic reviews that included falsified data. One of 6 quantitative reviews which included Reuben reports would have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. In all 6 (30 subgroup analyses involving Reuben reports), exclusion of Reuben reports never made any difference when the number of patients from Reuben reports was less than 30% of all patients included in the analysis. Of 8 qualitative reviews which included Reuben reports, all authors agreed that one would certainly have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. For another 4, the authors’ judgment was not unanimous. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 25 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 28 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | From 25 systematic reviews that included falsified data, one of 6 quantitative reviews which included Reuben reports would have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. In all 6 (30 subgroup analyses involving Reuben reports), exclusion of Reuben reports never made any difference when the number of patients from Reuben reports was less than 30% of all patients included in the analysis. Of 8 qualitative reviews which included Reuben reports, all authors agreed that one would certainly have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. For another 4, the authors’ judgment was not unanimous. |