The randomized clinical trial trustworthiness crisis

IF 1.6 Q4 REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY
Furqan A. Butt, Mohammad Fawzy, Bassel H. Al Wattar, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid S. Khan, Yacoub Khalaf
{"title":"The randomized clinical trial trustworthiness crisis","authors":"Furqan A. Butt, Mohammad Fawzy, Bassel H. Al Wattar, Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, Khalid S. Khan, Yacoub Khalaf","doi":"10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rising number of retracted randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is a concern over their trustworthiness. In today's digital landscape electronic observational data is easily accessible for research purposes. This emerging perspective, in tandem with the growing scrutiny of RCT credibility, may steer some researchers towards favouring non-randomized studies. It is crucial to emphasize the ongoing need for robust RCTs, shedding light on the areas within trial design that require enhancements and addressing existing gaps in trial execution. Evidence-based medicine pivots on the nexus between empirical medical research and the theoretical and applied facets of clinical care. Healthcare systems regularly amass patient data, creating a vast reservoir of information. This facilitates large-scale observational studies, which may appear as potential substitutes for RCTs. These large-scale studies inherently possess biases that place them a notch below randomized evidence. Honest errors, data manipulation, lapses in professionalism, and methodological shortcomings tarnish the integrity of RCTs, compromising trust in trials. Research institutions, funding agencies, journal editors and other stakeholders have the responsibility to establish robust frameworks to prevent both deliberate and inadvertent mishandling of RCT design, conduct and analysis. Systematic reviews that collate robust RCTs are invaluable. They amalgamate superior evidence instrumental in improving patient outcomes via informed health policy decisions. For systematic reviews to continue to retain trust, validated integrity assessment tools must be developed and routinely applied. This way it will be possible to prevent false or untrustworthy research from becoming part of the recommendations based on the evidence. High-quality RCTs and their systematic reviews play a crucial role in acquiring valid and reliable evidence that is instrumental in improving patient outcomes. They provide vital information on healthcare effectiveness, and their trustworthiness is key to evidence-based medicine.","PeriodicalId":18532,"journal":{"name":"Middle East Fertility Society Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Middle East Fertility Society Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43043-023-00161-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The rising number of retracted randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is a concern over their trustworthiness. In today's digital landscape electronic observational data is easily accessible for research purposes. This emerging perspective, in tandem with the growing scrutiny of RCT credibility, may steer some researchers towards favouring non-randomized studies. It is crucial to emphasize the ongoing need for robust RCTs, shedding light on the areas within trial design that require enhancements and addressing existing gaps in trial execution. Evidence-based medicine pivots on the nexus between empirical medical research and the theoretical and applied facets of clinical care. Healthcare systems regularly amass patient data, creating a vast reservoir of information. This facilitates large-scale observational studies, which may appear as potential substitutes for RCTs. These large-scale studies inherently possess biases that place them a notch below randomized evidence. Honest errors, data manipulation, lapses in professionalism, and methodological shortcomings tarnish the integrity of RCTs, compromising trust in trials. Research institutions, funding agencies, journal editors and other stakeholders have the responsibility to establish robust frameworks to prevent both deliberate and inadvertent mishandling of RCT design, conduct and analysis. Systematic reviews that collate robust RCTs are invaluable. They amalgamate superior evidence instrumental in improving patient outcomes via informed health policy decisions. For systematic reviews to continue to retain trust, validated integrity assessment tools must be developed and routinely applied. This way it will be possible to prevent false or untrustworthy research from becoming part of the recommendations based on the evidence. High-quality RCTs and their systematic reviews play a crucial role in acquiring valid and reliable evidence that is instrumental in improving patient outcomes. They provide vital information on healthcare effectiveness, and their trustworthiness is key to evidence-based medicine.
随机临床试验的可信度危机
被撤回的随机临床试验(RCT)数量不断增加,令人担忧其可信度。在当今的数字化时代,电子观察数据很容易被用于研究目的。这种新出现的观点,加上对随机临床试验可信度日益严格的审查,可能会引导一些研究人员倾向于非随机研究。我们必须强调目前对可靠的 RCT 的需求,揭示试验设计中需要改进的领域,并解决试验执行中的现有差距。循证医学的关键在于实证医学研究与临床护理的理论和应用之间的联系。医疗保健系统定期收集患者数据,形成了一个庞大的信息库。这为大规模观察性研究提供了便利,而观察性研究可能会成为研究性临床试验的潜在替代品。这些大规模研究本身存在偏差,比随机证据低一个等级。诚实错误、数据篡改、专业失误和方法缺陷玷污了 RCT 的诚信,损害了人们对试验的信任。研究机构、资助机构、期刊编辑和其他利益相关者有责任建立健全的框架,防止在 RCT 设计、实施和分析过程中出现有意或无意的不当处理。整理可靠的 RCT 的系统性综述非常宝贵。它们汇集了有助于通过明智的卫生政策决策改善患者治疗效果的优质证据。要想让系统性综述继续获得信任,就必须开发并常规应用经过验证的完整性评估工具。这样才能防止虚假或不可信的研究成为基于证据的建议的一部分。高质量的 RCT 及其系统性综述在获取有效、可靠的证据方面发挥着至关重要的作用,而这些证据对于改善患者的治疗效果至关重要。它们提供了有关医疗保健有效性的重要信息,其可信度是循证医学的关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
审稿时长
45 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信