Zombie trials are often monocentric and cluster within fabricated evidence factories: a cohort study of 236 retracted randomized controlled trials with confirmed data fabrication
Jajieh, T.; Chapelle, C.; Lemarchand, C.; Locher, C.; Pencole, M. A.; Ioannidis, J.; Ollier, E.; Naudet, F.; Laporte, S.
Show abstract
Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that rely on fabricated or fictitious data, commonly known as zombie trials, threaten evidence-based medicine by contaminating systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. We describe a cohort of zombie trials with confirmed data fabrication. Methods: The cohort was derived from the Retraction Watch database by updating and extending the dataset used in the VITALITY study to include all retracted zombie trials identified from database inception through December 11, 2025. To ensure that included RCTs were identified as zombie trials rather than retracted for other reasons, retraction notices were text-mined for terms indicative of data fabrication. Trial- and author-level characteristics were extracted using a combination of automated and manual methods by one reviewer. We applied descriptive statistics, coauthorship network analysis, and cascade effect mapping. Results: Among 236 retracted RCTs published between 1983 and 2024 and identified as zombie trials with confirmed data fabrication, 197 (83.5%) were associated with authors who had a history of repeated misconduct. These trials involved 450 authors overall, including only 66 unique first authors, with one author alone accounting for 104 trials (43.8% of the cohort). Authors associated with multiple zombie trials experienced substantially longer delays to retraction, with a median of 13.6 years (IQR 8.0-15.3), compared with 2.75 years for authors linked to a single zombie trial. Most retracted zombie RCTs were monocentric (91.9%), involved a median of 3.5 authors per trial, and predominantly evaluated pharmacological interventions. They were largely concentrated in anesthesiology (58.1%) and in Japan (56.4%). Adjusted for the volume of trials produced by country, Japan, Tunisia, and Egypt had the highest rates. Coauthorship networks formed fragmented, largely disconnected clusters, suggesting localized factories of fabricated evidence. Retraction cascades were common, with the identification of a single fraudulent trial often leading to chains of retractions that exposed misconduct spanning decades. Conclusion: Confirmed zombie trials were usually generated from single centers that published many such trials.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 97%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 96%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- How Informative Were Early SARS-CoV-2 Treatment and Prevention Trials? A longitudinal cohort analysis of trials registered on clinicaltrials.gov 95%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 95%
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- The Proportion of Randomized Controlled Trials That Inform Clinical Practice: A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 95%
- Multicenter preclinical studies as an innovative method to enhance translation: a systematic review of published studies 92%
- An Experimental Test of the Effects of Redacting Grant Applicant Identifiers on Peer Review Outcomes 91%
"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.