Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 29, 2025

Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
Published on: November 27, 2019
A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project
Jack Wilkinson1, Calvin Heal1, George A Antoniou2,3
1Centre for Biostatistics, The University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Background:
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion.
Methods:
We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list.
Results:
Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool.
Conclusions:
A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.
Insights
Researchers are developing a tool to identify fabricated or falsified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in systematic reviews. This tool aims to improve the reliability of healthcare evidence by assessing study authenticity.
Area of Science:
- Medical Research Integrity
- Evidence-Based Medicine
- Systematic Review Methodology
Background:
- Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are crucial for healthcare decisions, but some contain fabricated or false data.
- Systematic reviews synthesize RCTs, potentially including problematic studies without standardized methods for identification.
- The INSPECT-SR project aims to create a tool to detect unreliable RCTs within systematic reviews.
Approach:
- An initial list of 102 checks across five domains (results, team, conduct, text, participant data) was developed.
- An online survey was distributed to experts to gather feedback and identify additional authenticity checks.
- Feedback from 71 international participants led to an updated list of 116 checks.
Key Points:
- A comprehensive list of 116 trustworthiness checks for research studies has been compiled.
- New checks were proposed, and existing ones were refined based on expert international feedback.
- Participants highlighted the need for statistical checks and emphasized the tool's practical feasibility.
Conclusions:
- A robust list of checks for assessing research trustworthiness has been generated.
- These checks will be further evaluated for inclusion in the INSPECT-SR tool.
- The INSPECT-SR tool will enhance the reliability of systematic reviews in healthcare.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Observational Studies
There are three types of observational studies – Prospective, retrospective, and cross-sectional.
Prospective Study
Prospective studies, also known as longitudinal or cohort studies, are carried out by collecting future data from groups sharing similar characteristics. One...
Naturalistic Observations
Ethics in Research
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Surveys
Study Design in Statistics
Does aspirin reduce the risk of heart attacks? Is one brand of fertilizer more effective at growing roses than another? Is fatigue as dangerous to a driver as the influence of alcohol? Questions like these are answered using randomized experiments with proper...

