偏差风险和有问题的试验:描述提交给《麻醉学》的试验的研究完整性。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1111/anae.16411
Paul Bramley, Joshua Hulman, Helen Wanstall
{"title":"偏差风险和有问题的试验:描述提交给《麻醉学》的试验的研究完整性。","authors":"Paul Bramley, Joshua Hulman, Helen Wanstall","doi":"10.1111/anae.16411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is some evidence for systematic biases and failures of research integrity in the anaesthesia literature. However, the features of problematic trials and effect of editorial selection on these issues have not been well quantified.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed 209 randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia between 8 March 2019 and 31 March 2020. We evaluated the submitted manuscript, registry data and the results of investigations into the integrity of the trial undertaken at the time of submission. Trials were labelled 'concerning' if failures of research integrity were found, and 'problematic' if identified issues would have warranted retraction if they had been found after publication. We investigated how 'problematic' trials were detected, the distribution of p values and the risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking. We also investigated whether there were any factors that differed in problematic trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that false data was the most common reason for a trial to be labelled as 'concerning', which occurred in 51/62 (82%) cases. We also found that while 195/209 (93%) trials were preregistered, we found adequate registration for only 166/209 (79%) primary outcomes, 100/209 (48%) secondary outcomes and 11/209 (5%) analysis plans. We also found evidence for a step decrease in the frequency of p values > 0.05 compared with p values < 0.05. 'Problematic' trials were all single-centre and appeared to have fewer authors (incident risk ratio (95%CI) 0.8 (0.7-0.9)), but could not otherwise be distinguished reliably from other trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identification of 'problematic' trials is frequently dependent on individual patient data, which is often unavailable after publication. Additionally, there is evidence of a risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking in submitted trials. Implementation of alternative research and editorial practices could reduce the risk of bias and make identification of problematic trials easier.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of bias and problematic trials: characterising the research integrity of trials submitted to Anaesthesia.\",\"authors\":\"Paul Bramley, Joshua Hulman, Helen Wanstall\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/anae.16411\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is some evidence for systematic biases and failures of research integrity in the anaesthesia literature. However, the features of problematic trials and effect of editorial selection on these issues have not been well quantified.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analysed 209 randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia between 8 March 2019 and 31 March 2020. We evaluated the submitted manuscript, registry data and the results of investigations into the integrity of the trial undertaken at the time of submission. Trials were labelled 'concerning' if failures of research integrity were found, and 'problematic' if identified issues would have warranted retraction if they had been found after publication. We investigated how 'problematic' trials were detected, the distribution of p values and the risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking. We also investigated whether there were any factors that differed in problematic trials.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that false data was the most common reason for a trial to be labelled as 'concerning', which occurred in 51/62 (82%) cases. We also found that while 195/209 (93%) trials were preregistered, we found adequate registration for only 166/209 (79%) primary outcomes, 100/209 (48%) secondary outcomes and 11/209 (5%) analysis plans. We also found evidence for a step decrease in the frequency of p values > 0.05 compared with p values < 0.05. 'Problematic' trials were all single-centre and appeared to have fewer authors (incident risk ratio (95%CI) 0.8 (0.7-0.9)), but could not otherwise be distinguished reliably from other trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identification of 'problematic' trials is frequently dependent on individual patient data, which is often unavailable after publication. Additionally, there is evidence of a risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking in submitted trials. Implementation of alternative research and editorial practices could reduce the risk of bias and make identification of problematic trials easier.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7742,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16411\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.16411","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有证据表明,麻醉文献中存在系统性偏见和研究完整性失误。然而,问题试验的特征以及编辑选择对这些问题的影响尚未得到很好的量化:我们分析了 2019 年 3 月 8 日至 2020 年 3 月 31 日期间提交给《麻醉学》的 209 项随机对照试验。我们对提交的稿件、登记数据以及提交时对试验完整性的调查结果进行了评估。如果发现有研究诚信方面的问题,则将试验标记为 "令人担忧";如果发现的问题在发表后才被发现,则标记为 "有问题"。我们调查了 "有问题 "试验是如何被发现的、P 值的分布情况以及结果报告偏差和 P 值黑客的风险。我们还调查了有问题的试验是否存在不同的因素:我们发现,虚假数据是一项试验被贴上 "令人担忧 "标签的最常见原因,在 51/62 例(82%)中出现了这种情况。我们还发现,虽然有 195/209 项(93%)试验进行了预先登记,但我们发现只有 166/209 项(79%)主要结果、100/209 项(48%)次要结果和 11/209 项(5%)分析计划进行了充分登记。我们还发现,与 p 值相比,p 值大于 0.05 的频率逐步降低:识别 "有问题 "的试验往往依赖于患者的个体数据,而这些数据在发表后往往无法获得。此外,有证据表明在提交的试验中存在结果报告偏差和P值黑客的风险。采用其他研究和编辑方法可以降低偏倚风险,并更容易识别有问题的试验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk of bias and problematic trials: characterising the research integrity of trials submitted to Anaesthesia.

Background: There is some evidence for systematic biases and failures of research integrity in the anaesthesia literature. However, the features of problematic trials and effect of editorial selection on these issues have not been well quantified.

Methods: We analysed 209 randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia between 8 March 2019 and 31 March 2020. We evaluated the submitted manuscript, registry data and the results of investigations into the integrity of the trial undertaken at the time of submission. Trials were labelled 'concerning' if failures of research integrity were found, and 'problematic' if identified issues would have warranted retraction if they had been found after publication. We investigated how 'problematic' trials were detected, the distribution of p values and the risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking. We also investigated whether there were any factors that differed in problematic trials.

Results: We found that false data was the most common reason for a trial to be labelled as 'concerning', which occurred in 51/62 (82%) cases. We also found that while 195/209 (93%) trials were preregistered, we found adequate registration for only 166/209 (79%) primary outcomes, 100/209 (48%) secondary outcomes and 11/209 (5%) analysis plans. We also found evidence for a step decrease in the frequency of p values > 0.05 compared with p values < 0.05. 'Problematic' trials were all single-centre and appeared to have fewer authors (incident risk ratio (95%CI) 0.8 (0.7-0.9)), but could not otherwise be distinguished reliably from other trials.

Conclusions: Identification of 'problematic' trials is frequently dependent on individual patient data, which is often unavailable after publication. Additionally, there is evidence of a risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking in submitted trials. Implementation of alternative research and editorial practices could reduce the risk of bias and make identification of problematic trials easier.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
×
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