Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Sep 1;138(3):338-347.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004513.

Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials

Affiliations
Review

Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials

Wentao Li et al. Obstet Gynecol. .

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) serve as the pillar of evidence-based medicine and guide medical practice. Compromised data integrity in RCTs undermines the authority of this valuable tool for science and puts patients at risk. Although a large number of retractions due to data issues in obstetrics and gynecology have occurred in the past few years, many problematic RCTs could still go uncovered because in general there is insufficient willingness to envisage and confront research misconduct. In this article, we discuss the necessity of assessing research misconduct, summarize methods that have been applied in detecting previous cases of misconduct, and propose potential solutions. There is no established mechanism to monitor feedback on published articles and the current system that handles potential research misconduct is unsatisfactory. Fortunately, there are methods to assess data integrity in RCTs both with and without individual participant data. Investigations into research misconduct can be facilitated by assessing all publications from a leading author or author group to identify duplication and patterns of ongoing misconduct. There is a pressing need to improve the mechanism that investigates data manipulation. The mechanism that handles misconduct should prioritize the interests of patients and readers rather than trial authors and their institutions. An equally urgent issue is to establish mechanisms that prevent compromised trials from polluting evidence synthesis or misguiding practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Financial Disclosure Ben W. Mol reports consultancy for ObsEva and grants from Merck, Ferring, and Guerbet. The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Comment in

  • Assessing Research Misconduct in Randomized Controlled Trials.
    Khan KS. Khan KS. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec 1;138(6):944. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004622. Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 34794158 No abstract available.
  • In Reply.
    Li W, Bordewijk EM, Mol BW. Li W, et al. Obstet Gynecol. 2021 Dec 1;138(6):945. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000004623. Obstet Gynecol. 2021. PMID: 34794159 No abstract available.

References

    1. Carlisle J. False individual patient data and zombie randomised controlled trials submitted to Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2020;76:472–9. doi: 10.1111/anae.15263 - DOI
    1. Wang R, van Wely M. Understand low-quality evidence: learn from food chains. Fertil Steril 2020;113:93–4. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.026 - DOI
    1. Retraction Watch. What took more than five years? Elsevier retracts 20 papers by world's most prolific fraudster. Accessed February 2, 2021. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/05/17/what-took-more-than-five-years-el...
    1. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2012;109:17028–33. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 - DOI
    1. Steen RG. Retractions in the scientific literature: do authors deliberately commit research fraud? J Med Ethics 2011;37:113–7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.038125 - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources