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
. 2023 Sep;162(3):860-876.
doi: 10.1002/ijgo.14762. Epub 2023 Apr 16.

Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review

María Núñez-Núñez  1   2   3 , Marta Maes-Carballo  4   5 , Luciano E Mignini  6 , Patrick F W Chien  7 , Yacoub Khalaf  8 , Mohamed Fawzy  9 , Javier Zamora  3   10 , Khalid S Khan  3   11 , Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas  3   11
Affiliations

Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review

María Núñez-Núñez et al. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2023 Sep.

Abstract

Background: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their trustworthiness. Although a comprehensive literature search yielded several reviews on RCT integrity, an overarching overview is lacking.

Objectives: The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.

Search strategy and selection criteria: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.

Data collection and analysis: The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.

Main results: A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).

Conclusions: Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.

Keywords: quality assessment; randomized clinical trial; research integrity; scoping; scoping review; umbrella review; umbrella review integrity issues.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Bauchner H, Golub RM, Fontanarosa PB. Reporting and interpretation of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2019;322(8):732-735.
    1. Hariton E, Locascio JJ. Randomised controlled trials-the gold standard for effectiveness research: study design: randomised controlled trials. BJOG. 2018;125:1716.
    1. Steen RG, Casadevall A, Fang FC. Why has the number of scientific retractions increased? PLoS One. 2013;8(7):e68397.
    1. Fanelli D. Why growing retractions are (mostly) a good sign. PLoS Med. 2013;10(12):e1001563.
    1. Stavale R, Ferreira GI, Galvão JAM, et al. Research misconduct in health and life sciences research: a systematic review of retracted literature from Brazilian institutions. PLoS One. 2019;14(4):e0214272.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources