Meta-epidemiological study of publication integrity, and quality of conduct and reporting of randomized trials included in a systematic review of low back pain.
Predatory publications
Research integrity
Systematic review
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2021
06 2021
Historique:
received:
19
10
2020
revised:
07
01
2021
accepted:
20
01
2021
pubmed:
6
2
2021
medline:
30
9
2021
entrez:
5
2
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To comprehensively describe the quality of conduct, reporting, and publication integrity characteristics for all trials included in a large Cochrane review, comparing those published by presumed predatory publishers with those published by nonpredatory publishers. Cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study. Two hundred seventy-nine studies (25,704 participants) eligible for the recent update of the "Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain" Cochrane review were included. Study and manuscript characteristics, including predatory publication status and other quality and integrity characteristics were extracted along with treatment effect. Nine percent of trials included were in presumed predatory publications; 12% in the period since 2010. We found frequency of other concerning characteristics to range from low (eg, plagiarism, 5%) to common (eg, lack of evidence of trial registration or protocol publication [75%]; insufficient sample size [84%]) in included studies. Studies published by presumed predatory publishers consistently had inferior conduct, reporting and publication integrity characteristics. Presumed predatory publication was associated with missing conflict of interest statement (OR 7.6, 95% CI 3.0-19.1), inadequate follow-up duration (OR 11.2, 95% CI 3.7-33.7), incomplete study methods (OR 12.1, 95% CI 2.8-52.2) and baseline reporting (OR 4.3, 95% CI 1.6-11.7), and high risk of bias (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2-6.3). All (100%) presumed predatory publications were missing trial registrations (vs. 72%) and had inadequate sample sizes (vs. 82%). Trials published in presumed predatory journals did not appear to have inflated effect sizes. Predatory publishers pose a distinct challenge to the consumption and synthesis of randomized controlled trials. More work is needed in other clinical areas to understand the potential impact of randomized controlled trials published in predatory publications, and as a result, the potential impact on evidence from systematic reviews that include these studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33545270
pii: S0895-4356(21)00031-7
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.020
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
65-78Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest JAH: no competing interests. JE: no competing interests. RO: no competing interests. LB: no competing interests. SS: no competing interests.