Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings

Doshi, Peter; Dickersin, Kay; Healy, David; Vedula, S. Swaroop; Jefferson, Tom

doi:10.1136/bmj.f2865

Cited by 167 publications

(105 citation statements)

References 111 publications

(36 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…87 Likewise, The BMJ remains very active in this arena, and Doshi and colleagues' Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative remains active as well. 47,[90][91][92] The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and World Health Organization (WHO) also recently made explicit calls to improve these issues.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peering into the “rabbit hole” of publication bias and inadequate research transparency: Adding tangibility to the abstract

Mayer

2015

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When patients seek medical care, they assume the treatment or advice they receive is based on a strong understanding of the human body and its processes. They also typically assume the care they receive is based on a strong understanding of the research literature pertaining to their well-being and any ailments for which they might seek care. However, publication bias and inadequate research transparency greatly threaten medical providers' ability to practice evidence-based medicine in its truest form, and this in turn puts patients at unnecessary risk. The evidence of these issues existing is unequivocal. However, systematic reviews and other studies that present overviews of these issues -although certainly incredibly important in establishing the undeniable presence and pervasiveness of these issues -may inadvertently obfuscate the concreteness of these closely-related processes in action. Therefore, this article presents a "case series" of these detrimental issues in action in an effort to emphasize the tangibility of these issues and thereby help make their importance unmistakably clear.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peering into the “rabbit hole” of publication bias and inadequate research transparency: Adding tangibility to the abstract

Mayer

2015

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We launched the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative in 2013 to tackle the fundamental problems of trial invisibility and distortion that damage the biomedical literature 13. The RIAT concept posits that when original investigators and sponsors abandon their trials, either by not pursuing publication or by refusing to correct demonstrable errors in a trial publication, third parties that have obtained the underlying trial data are free to publish and correct the record 13…”

Section: Restoring Trustmentioning

confidence: 99%

Restoring biomedical literature with RIAT

Doshi

Shamseer

Jones

et al. 2018

BMJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goldacre, a physician and academic at the University of Oxford, also heads the recently-established Evidence-Based Medicine DataLab (https://ebmdatalab.net/), which has several projects seeking to improve the entire edifice of evidence-based medicine. The BMJ launched its Open Data Campaign (https://www.bmj.com/open-data) and published Doshi and colleagues’ RIAT (Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials) protocol the same year AllTrials launched,108 and a few groups have since used the RIAT protocol to restore a trial, notably including the infamous Study 329 109–111. Moreover, thanks to recent funding from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the RIAT Support Center is now live (www.restoringtrials.org).…”

Section: Following Fostering and Fortifying The Fixmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research integrity and the law that never was

Mayer

2018

BMJ EBM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence-based medicine is arguably among the most important innovations of the modern era, but publication bias and inadequate research transparency are serious issues affecting the very foundation of evidence-based practice. Despite this truth, these crucial issues have gone largely unaddressed or inadequately addressed for a distressingly long period of time. Regulatory efforts have thus far proven insufficient in eliminating these issues. Fortunately, the last 5 years in particular have seen developments that one hopes will contribute to the eradication of these issues and a future where we can look back on these issues as a sordid story of our past. However, much like the purported fixes of the past, time will be the final arbiter of the efficacy of remedial measures currently underway. This article chronicles the history of these issues, failed attempts to fix these issues, and what can be and is being done with the hope of bringing about true resolution.

show abstract

Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings

Abstract: Unpublished and misreported studies make it difficult to determine the true value of a treatment. Peter Doshi and colleagues call for sponsors and investigators of abandoned studies to publish (or republish) and propose a system for independent publishing if sponsors fail to respond

Cited by 167 publications

References 111 publications

Peering into the “rabbit hole” of publication bias and inadequate research transparency: Adding tangibility to the abstract

Peering into the “rabbit hole” of publication bias and inadequate research transparency: Adding tangibility to the abstract

Restoring biomedical literature with RIAT

Research integrity and the law that never was

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About