Evaluation of the Inclusion of Studies Identified by the FDA as Having Falsified Data in the Results of Meta-analyses

Garmendia, Craig A.; Gorra, Liliana Nassar; Rodríguez, Ana Lucía; Trepka, Mary Jo; Veledar, Emir; Madhivanan, Purnima

doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7661

Cited by 34 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, 3 guidelines and 15 reviews in the radiation oncology literature have been reported to cite retracted articles as valid sources of data (Zietman et al 2019). One recent study (Garmendia et al 2019) had found that nearly half of 24 meta-analyses including falsi ed data of clinical trials had conclusions altered if excluded the awed results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of retracted systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the biomedical literature

Wang¹,

Yong-Hong²,

Xing³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The number of retracted reviews, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, in the biomedical literature has increased dramatically in recent years. There has not yet been a systematic study to clarify the characteristics of retracted reviews. Present study determined trends in biomedical reviews, particularly with respect to reasons for retraction and geographical origin. Reviews were collated from Medline and Cochrane Library searches. Reasons for retraction were catalogued based on information retrieved via PubMed, Google, and journal websites. A total of 171 retracted non-Cochrane reviews and 439 Cochrane reviews were included. The most common reasons for retraction of non-Cochrane reviews were invalid review (n = 70), error (n = 36), and plagiarism (n = 20). Chinese authors produced a distinctively large number of reviews retracted for a faked review process and most retracted meta-analyses from areas of biochemistry molecular biology, oncology, genetics heredity and etc. Cochrane review retraction reasons included principally updating issues (n = 382), errors (n = 26), and sponsorship policy issues (n = 13). The number of retracted reviews in the biomedical literature, especially from Chinese authors, has surged since 2005. The major reasons for these retractions were related to updating among Cochrane systematic reviews but were related to misconduct among non-Cochrane systematic reviews. The present results highlight the need misconduct prevention measures.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of retracted systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the biomedical literature

Wang¹,

Yong-Hong²,

Xing³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mass production of such summarizing data collections contributes significantly to the dissemination and survival of false data. Garmenia and coworkers [7] found that 46% of all re-assessed meta-analyses would result in a change in the initial findings if studies with falsified data were to be excluded. The authors concluded that "Falsified data can affect not only the original publication, but also any subsequent meta-analyses and any resulting clinical or policy changes resulting from the findings of these studies."…”

Section: Thomas Stammmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The authors concluded that "Falsified data can affect not only the original publication, but also any subsequent meta-analyses and any resulting clinical or policy changes resulting from the findings of these studies." [7].…”

Section: Thomas Stammmentioning

confidence: 99%

From honest mistakes to fake news – approaches to correcting the scientific literature

Stamm

2020

Head Face Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A recent study examined the impact that a clinical trial that contained falsified data had on 22 meta-analyses that included it, and concluded that 10 (46%) metaanalyses had their results significantly changed [15]. This result, however, cannot be generalised due to various limitations.…”

Section: Bodymentioning

confidence: 99%

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Fanelli

Moher

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Every year, several hundred publications are retracted due to fabrication and falsification of data or plagiarism and other breeches of research integrity and ethics. Despite considerable research on this phenomenon, the extent to which a retraction requires revising previous scientific estimates and beliefs – which we define as the epistemic impact - is unknown. We collected a representative sample of recently retracted studies that had been included in recent meta-analyses, and compared the summary effect size of these meta analyses with and without the refracted studies. On average, the retractions had occurred about six years prior to the publication of the corresponding meta-analyses.Our results suggest that retractions have varying impacts depending on their causes. In particular, removing from an analysis a study retracted because of issues with data, methods or results, led to a statistically significant reduction of the estimated effect size. Assuming that the results of these retracted studies are completely false, then the meta-analyses that had included them had overestimated the summary effect sizes by, averaging across effect size metrics, 30% (median, 13%). However, retractions due to plagiarism or other issues not related to data, methods or results had no impact on the conclusions of meta-analyses.Since retractions due to plagiarism or other non-data related issues typically constitute over 75% of total retractions, our results suggest that the epistemic impact of most retractions is likely to be null. However, our results also suggest that retractions due to issues with data, methods or results should be accompanied by a revision of relevant meta-analyses, and by extension a downwards revision of prior scientific beliefs.

show abstract

Evaluation of the Inclusion of Studies Identified by the FDA as Having Falsified Data in the Results of Meta-analyses

Abstract: This article was corrected on November 23, 2020, to fix results of mistakenly included analyses and coding errors.

Cited by 34 publications

References 3 publications

Characteristics of retracted systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the biomedical literature

Characteristics of retracted systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the biomedical literature

From honest mistakes to fake news – approaches to correcting the scientific literature

What difference do retractions make? An estimate of the epistemic impact of retractions on recent meta-analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About