Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2026

A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
Data integrity of the 223 randomized controlled clinical trials produced by multiple groups centered around a single
Daan Langeveld1, Buğra Sipahioğlu1, Marlena Oebel1
1Institute of Psychology, Department of Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Background:
We suspected unusual consistency in baseline variables and dropout rate in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) produced by a team of researchers. We define this group of RCTs by the presence of an individual researcher in the author team, whom we call here the 'key author'. We investigated the trustworthiness of these data and with that its scientific and clinical value.
Methods:
Systematic searches were performed in Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for all the RCTs published by this author team. The final search date was 01/08/2024. Preregistered analyses tested for the presence of sampling variability in baseline characteristics of the RCTs and participant flow, operationalized as an even vs. odd dropout and an equal dropout, through the trials. Control data was gathered from RCTs that were performed by other groups but on similar topics as the investigated RCTs.
Results:
We found strong evidence that the expected sampling variability was not present in the 223 RCTs produced by this group relative to the expected uniform distribution (Bayes Factor [BF10] > 100000) and to what we observed in the 103 control RCTs (BF10 = 172). The proportion of even vs. odd dropout (e.g., 4 vs. 3) was .76 (95% CI = 0.70, 0.81) and different from the theoretical value of .50 (BF10 = 8.5×1011) and from what we observed in control RCTs (BF10 = 379). Equal dropout over arms of a trial was 3 to 4 times more likely in the tested trials than in the control trials, relative to what we observed in control trials (BF10 = 1.8×1016). The results were not explained by the method of randomization or sample size. Associations were mostly evident when the 'key author' had first or last authorship.
Conclusion:
It is unlikely that the RCTs by this team were generated through the process of randomization, and the flow of participants in these trials seems implausible. Hence, we question the scientific and clinical value of the RCTs that are produced by this team.
Registration:
https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8MTG6.
Related Concept Videos
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Clinical Trials: Overview
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, controlled...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial evaluating a...
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Blinding
