Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T14:08:46.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Systematic Reviewers Have an Obligation to Promote Research Integrity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2025

Lisa Bero Open the ORCID record for Lisa Bero [Opens in a new window]
Lisa Bero*
Affiliation:
Professor of Medicine and Public Health, Chief Scientist, Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA and Senior Research Integrity Editor, Cochrane, London, UK
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Systematic reviewers are ideally placed to detect untrustworthy studies and decrease their use in decision making. The systematic review process already requires rigorous evaluation of an entire body of evidence related to a particular question. Excluding untrustworthy studies from systematic reviews can reduce their subsequent impact on evidence used for decisions and raise awareness of the problem among universities, journal editors, research funders and other stakeholders who can take appropriate action to eliminate them from the scientific literature.

Keywords

research integrity
Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , First View , pp. 1 - 6
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Mulrow, C.D., “Rationale for Systematic Reviews,” British Medical Journal 309, no. 6954 (1994): 597–599, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597; L.N. Vandenberg et al., “A Proposed Framework for the Systematic Review and Integrated Assessment (Syrina) of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals,” Environmental Health 15, no. 1 (2016): at 74, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6; T.J. Woodruff and P. Sutton, “An Evidence-Based Medicine Methodology to Bridge the Gap between Clinical and Environmental Health Sciences,” Health Affairs 30, no. 5 (2011): 931–937, https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2010.1219; M. Petticrew and H. Roberts, Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide (Blackwell Publishing, 2006): 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887.fmatter.Google ScholarPubMed
Fox, D.M. and Bero, L., Editorial, “Systematic Reviews: Perhaps ‘the Answer to Policy Makers’ Prayers?,’” Environmental Health Perspectives 122, no. 10 (2014): A262–A263, https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408599.Google ScholarPubMed
Boughton, S.L. et al., Editorial: “When Beauty Is but Skin Deep: Dealing with Problematic Studies in Systematic Reviews,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 6, no. 6 (2021): ED000152, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000152.Google Scholar
Parker, L. et al., “Experts Identified Warning Signs of Fraudulent Research: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Screening Tool,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 151 (2022): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlisle, J.B., “False Individual Patient Data and Zombie Randomised Controlled Trials Submitted to Anaesthesia,” Anaesthesia 76, no. 4 (2021): 472–479, https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15263.Google ScholarPubMed
O’Connell, N.E. et al., “Investigating the Veracity of a Sample of Divergent Published Trial Data in Spinal Pain,” Pain 164, no. 1 (2023): 72–83, https://doi.org/10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002659.Google ScholarPubMed
Weeks, J. et al., “Trustworthiness Assessment as an Inclusion Criterion for Systematic Reviews—What Is the Impact on Results?,” Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods 1, no. 10 (2023): e12037, https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12037.Google Scholar
Torgerson, D.J., “Revised Meta-Analysis of Vitamin K and Fractures-Reply,” JAMA Internal Medicine 178, no. 8 (2018): 1135, https://doi,org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.2865; N. Novikova et al., “Tranexamic Acid for Preventing Postpartum Haemorrhage,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, no. 6 (2015): CD007872, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007872.pub3.Google ScholarPubMed
Bryant, A. et al., “Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of Covid-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines,” American Journal of Therapeutics 28, no. 4 (2021): e434–e460, https://doi.org/10.1097/MJT.0000000000001402 A. Izcovich et al., “Bias as a Source of Inconsistency in Ivermectin Trials for Covid-19: A Systematic Review. Ivermectin’s Suggested Benefits Are Mainly Based on Potentially Biased Results,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 144 (2022): 43–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.018; P. Kory et al., “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Covid-19,” American Journal of Therapeutics 28, no. 3 (2021): e299–e318, https://doi.org/10.1097/mjt.0000000000001377; M. Popp et al., “Ivermectin for Preventing and Treating Covid-19,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2022, no. 6 (2022): CD015017, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD015017.pub3.Google ScholarPubMed
Weibel, S. et al., “Identifying and Managing Problematic Trials: A Research Integrity Assessment Tool for Randomized Controlled Trials in Evidence Synthesis,” Research Synthesis Methods 14, no. 3 (2023): 357–369, https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Byrne, J.A. and Christopher, J., Editorial: “Digital Magic, or the Dark Arts of the 21st Century—How Can Journals and Peer Reviewers Detect Manuscripts and Publications from Paper Mills?,” Federation of European Biochemical Societies Letters 594, no. 4 (2020): 583–589, https://doi.org/10.1002/1873-3468.13747.Google ScholarPubMed
Gopalakrishna, G. et al., “Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices, Research Misconduct and Their Potential Explanatory Factors: A Survey among Academic Researchers in the Netherlands,” PLoS One 17, no. 2 (2022): e0263023, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263023; B.C. Martinson et al., “Scientists Behaving Badly,” Nature 435, no. 7043 (2005): 737–738, https://doi.org/10.1038/435737a.Google ScholarPubMed
Bero, L., Opinion Piece: “Stamp out Fake Clinical Data by Working Together,” Nature 601, no. 7892 (2022): at 167, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00025-6.Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Wager, E. and Williams, P., “Why and How Do Journals Retract Articles? An Analysis of Medline Retractions 1988-2008,” Journal of Medical Ethics 37, no. 9 (2011): 567–570, https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2010.040964; J. Schneider et al., “Continued Post-Retraction Citation of a Fraudulent Clinical Trial Report, 11 years after It Was Retracted for Falsifying Data,” Scientometrics 125, no. 3 (2020): 2877–2913, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03631-1; T.K. Hsiao and J. Schneider, “Continued Use of Retracted Papers: Temporal Trends in Citations and (Lack of) Awareness of Retractions Shown in Citation Contexts in Biomedicine,” Quantitative Science Studies 2, no. 4 (2022): 1144–1169, https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00155.Google ScholarPubMed
Cabanac, G. et al., Preprint, “Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals,” arXiv:2107.06751v1 [cs.DL], (2021), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, J.A. et al., “The Thin Ret(raction) Line: Biomedical Journal Responses to Incorrect Non-Targeting Nucleotide Sequence Reagents in Human Gene Knockdown Publications,” Scientometrics 126, no. 4 (2021): 3513–3534, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03871-9.Google Scholar
Higgins, J.P.T. and Thomas, J., “Risk of bias in randomized trials” and “Risk of bias in non-randomized studies,” in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4, ed. Chandler, J. et al., (John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2023), https://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook/current.Google Scholar
Salandra, R. et al., “Directing Scientists Away from Potentially Biased Publications: The Role of Systematic Reviews in Health Care,” Research Policy 50, no. 1 (2021): 104130, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guidance, Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), https://publicationethics.org/guidance?classification52771 (last visited February 2, 2022); Policy for managing potentially problematic studies: implementation guidance, Cochrane Library, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/editorial-policies/problematic-studies-implementation-guidance (last visited August 7, 2024).Google Scholar
See Parker, supra note 4.Google Scholar
Bordewijk, E.M. et al., “Methods to Assess Research Misconduct in Health-Related Research: A Scoping Review,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 136, (2021): 189–202, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.012.Google ScholarPubMed
Id. Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. et al., “Protocol for the Development of a Tool (Inspect-SR) to Identify Problematic Randomised Controlled Trials in Systematic Reviews of Health Interventions,” BMJ Open 14, no. 3 (2024): e084164, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084164.Google ScholarPubMed
See Bordewijk, supra note 22; Parker, L. et al., “Experts Identified Warning Signs of Fraudulent Research: A Qualitative Study to Inform a Screening Tool, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 151, (2022): 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006.Google ScholarPubMed
See Wilkinson, supra note 24.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, J. et al., Preprint, “A Survey of Experts to Identify Methods to Detect Problematic Studies: Stage 1 of the Inspect-Sr Project,” medRxiv 2024.03.18.24304479, (2024), https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.03.18.24304479 (now published in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111512).Google Scholar
Id. Google Scholar
Policy for managing potentially problematic studies: implementation guidance, supra note 20; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: Editorial Policies, Problematic Studies Policy, Cochrane Library, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/editorial-policies#problematic-studies (last visited August 7, 2024).Google Scholar
Bakker, C. et al., “Reducing the Residue of Retractions in Evidence Synthesis: Ways to Minimise Inappropriate Citation and Use of Retracted Data,” BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 29, no. 2 (2024): 121–126, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2022-111921; National Information Standards Organization (NISO), Communication of Retractions, Removals, and Expressions of Concern (CREC) Recommended Practice, NISO RP-45-2024 (June 26, 2024), available at https://www.niso.org/publications/rp-45-2024-crec; C. Lefebvre et al. “Technical Supplement to Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies,” in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4, ed, J.P.T Higgins et al., (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2023): 81–84.Google ScholarPubMed
See Policy for managing potentially problematic studies: implementation guidance, supra note 20.Google Scholar
See Bero, supra note 13.Google Scholar
Gunsalus, C.K., Piece, Opinion, “Make Reports of Research Misconduct Public,” Nature 570, no. 7759 (2019): at 7, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-01728-z.Google ScholarPubMed