INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials
Wilkinson, J. D.; Heal, C.; Flemyng, E.; Antoniou, G. A.; Aburrow, T.; Alfirevic, Z.; Avenell, A.; Barbour, V.; Berghella, V.; Bishop, D. V.; Bordewijk, E. M.; Brown, N. J.; Christopher, J.; Clarke, M.; Dahly, D. L.; Dennis, J.; Dicker, P.; Dumville, J.; Frankish, H.; Grey, A.; Grohmann, S.; Gurrin, L. C.; Hayden, J. A.; Heathers, J. A.; Hunter, K. E.; Hussey, I.; Jung, L.; Lam, E.; Lasserson, T. J.; Lensen, S.; Li, T.; Li, W.; Liu, J.; Loder, E.; Lundh, A.; Meyerowitz-Katz, G.; Mol, B. W.; Naudet, F.; Noel-Storr, A.; O'Connell, N.; Parker, L.; Redberg, R. F.; Redman, B. K.; Richardson, R.; Se
Show abstract
PrecisThe integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings. This could be due to research misconduct, including fraud, or due to honest critical errors. If these RCTs are not detected, they may be inadvertently included in systematic reviews and guidelines, potentially distorting their results. To address this problem, the INSPECT-SR (INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews) tool has been developed to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs. This will allow problematic RCTs to be identified and excluded from systematic reviews. This paper describes the development of INSPECT-SR. The tool and an associated guidance document are presented.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 98%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 97%
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 96%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Improving research transparency with individualized report cards: A feasibility study in clinical trials at a large university medical center 96%
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 95%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 98%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 96%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trials that turn from retrospectively registered to prospectively registered: A cohort study of ‘retroactively prospective’ clinical trial registration using history data 95%
- Development of a consensus extension of the estimands framework for cluster randomised trials (CRT-estimands): results from an international Delphi study 94%
- Controlled evaLuation of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers for COVID-19 respIraTorY disease (CLARITY): Statistical analysis plan for a randomised controlled Bayesian adaptive sample size trial 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.