Research misconduct — not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes — sometimes is identified by authors of systematic reviews, but is rarely reported, found a recent study.1
Researchers analyzed 118 systematic reviews published in 2013. Some key findings include the following:
- Unpublished trials were searched in 66% of reviews.
- Authors of original studies were contacted in 62% of reviews.
- Duplicate publications were searched in 69% of reviews.
- Only five reviews looked at conflicts of interest of study authors. None of them analyzed the effect.
- Seven reviews suspected misconduct, but only two reported it explicitly.
Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed, the researchers argue.
“Depending on the nature of the misconduct, when the scientific record goes uncorrected, people may rely on invalid ‘evidence’ to support practice, policy, or their approach to a problem,” says Karen Christianson, RN, BSN, CCRP, associate vice president at HRP Consulting Group in Lake Success, NY.
This is particularly troubling in healthcare, says Christianson. This is because physicians and other providers may base their approach to treatment on false evidence. In turn, this may result in unanticipated adverse effects, outcomes, or other negative consequences. “Now imagine the impact of this over time, across hundreds or thousands of lives,” says Christianson.
Christianson believes there is an ethical obligation to report suspected misconduct — if not to the organization who employs the scientist, then to the journal which published the work in question. “Most scientific organizations and respected journals have established policies and processes to ensure that such concerns are evaluated and, if warranted, investigated,” she notes.
Most have established mechanisms for anonymous or confidential reporting, and non-retaliation policies. If misconduct did occur, the work in question is likely to be retracted. “This then sets the path for other scientists to perform research which may validate or refute the prior findings, correcting the scientific record,” says Christianson.
REFERENCE
- Elia N, von Elm E, Chatagner A, et al. How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors. BMJ Open 2016; 6(3):e010442.
SOURCE
- Karen Christianson, Associate Vice President, HRP Consulting Group, Lake Success, NY. Phone: (347) 862-9321 ext. 4. Email: [email protected].
Research misconduct — not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes — sometimes is identified by authors of systematic reviews, but is rarely reported, found a recent study.
You have reached your article limit for the month. Subscribe now to access this article plus other member-only content.
- Award-winning Medical Content
- Latest Advances & Development in Medicine
- Unbiased Content