Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews..., 2023, Kirkham et al

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions
Preprint: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.21.23295626v1

Abstract

Introduction Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed, and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions.

Methods and analysis The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

 

A tool for inspection of RCTs (what about non-controlled ones? because there are tons of them in EBM) from Cochrane. Which looks to mostly involve asking people involved in so-called evidence-based medicine (EBM) what they think of EBM and whether their methods and reviews are good.

Yeah that'll do it. Academia is broken. Peer review is almost useless. Journals don't bother doing their job, even fixing obvious errors that they admit are errors. And that includes Cochrane. But they'll join together in providing "oversight" from the same groups that do the things they are overseeing. Totally will fix all the problems with EBM.

Right now Cochrane is a major provider of false data on our healthcare, so mark me down as so skeptical I have strained my eyes from rolling them.