Risk of bias and problematic trials: characterising the research integrity of trials submitted to Anaesthesia
Authors' conclusion
Identification of 'problematic' trials is frequently dependent on individual patient data, which is often unavailable after publication. Additionally, there is evidence of a risk of outcome reporting bias and p-hacking in submitted trials.
Study context
- Population
- RCTs submitted to Anaesthesia between 8 March 2019 and 31 March 2020submitted RCTs
- Participants
- 209 rcts
- Exposure
- 'Problematic' trials vs other submitted trials
- Outcome
- Research integrity and registration of submitted trials
Methodological detailsmeta-research, trials submitted to Anaesthesia
- Meta-research
- Trials submitted to Anaesthesia
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- False data as reason for 'concerning' label
- 51/62 (82%)
- Trials preregistered
- 195/209 (93%)
- Adequate registration of primary outcomes
- 166/209 (79%)
- Adequate registration of secondary outcomes
- 100/209 (48%)
- Adequate registration of analysis plans
- 11/209 (5%)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Incident risk ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Number of authors, problematic vs other trials | 0.8 (0.7–0.9) | |
| 0.512Incident risk ratio (log scale) |
Number of authors, problematic vs other trials
- 'Problematic' trials were all single-centre; otherwise not reliably distinguishable from other trials
Original publication
Risk of bias and problematic trials: characterising the research integrity of trials submitted to Anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. Published 15 August 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →