Dataset Information

Frequency of discrepancies in retracted clinical trial reports versus unretracted reports: blinded case-control study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To compare the frequency of discrepancies in retracted reports of clinical trials with those in adjacent unretracted reports in the same journal.

Design

Blinded case-control study.

Setting

Journals in PubMed.

Population

50 manuscripts, classified on PubMed as retracted clinical trials, paired with 50 adjacent unretracted manuscripts from the same journals. Reports were randomly selected from PubMed in December 2012, with no restriction on publication date. Controls were the preceding unretracted clinical trial published in the same journal. All traces of retraction were removed. Three scientists, blinded to the retraction status of individual reports, reviewed all 100 trial reports for discrepancies. Discrepancies were pooled and cross checked before being counted into prespecified categories. Only then was the retraction status unblinded for analysis.

Main outcome measure

Total number of discrepancies (defined as mathematically or logically contradictory statements) in each clinical trial report.

Results

Of 479 discrepancies found in the 100 trial reports, 348 were in the 50 retracted reports and 131 in the 50 unretracted reports. On average, individual retracted reports had a greater number of discrepancies than unretracted reports (median 4 (interquartile range 2-8.75) v 0 (0-5); P<0.001). Papers with a discrepancy were significantly more likely to be retracted than those without a discrepancy (odds ratio 5.7 (95% confidence interval 2.2 to 14.5); P<0.001). In particular, three types of discrepancy arose significantly more frequently in retracted than unretracted reports: factual discrepancies (P=0.002), arithmetical errors (P=0.01), and missed P values (P=0.02). Results from a retrospective analysis indicated that citations and journal impact factor were unlikely to affect the result.

Conclusions

Discrepancies in published trial reports should no longer be assumed to be unimportant. Scientists, blinded to retraction status and with no specialist skill in the field, identify significantly more discrepancies in retracted than unretracted reports of clinical trials. Discrepancies could be an early and accessible signal of unreliability in clinical trial reports.

SUBMITTER: Cole GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4575810 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine if rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration results in improved hydration and clinical outcomes when administered to children with gastroenteritis.DesignSingle centre, two arm, parallel randomised pragmatic controlled trial. Blocked randomisation stratified by site. Participants, caregivers, outcome assessors, investigators, and statisticians were blinded to the treatment assignment.SettingPaediatric emergency department in a tertiary care centre in Toronto, Canada.Participants226 children aged 3 months to 11 years; complete follow-up was obtained on 223 (99%). Eligible children were aged over 90 days, had a diagnosis of dehydration secondary to gastroenteritis, had not responded to oral rehydration, and had been prescribed intravenous rehydration. Children were excluded if they weighed less than 5 kg or more than 33 kg, required fluid restriction, had a suspected surgical condition, or had an insurmountable language barrier. Children were also excluded if they had a history of a chronic systemic disease, abdominal surgery, bilious or bloody vomit, hypotension, or hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia.InterventionsRapid (60 mL/kg) or standard (20 mL/kg) rehydration with 0.9% saline over an hour; subsequent fluids administered according to protocol.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomeclinical rehydration, assessed with a validated scale, two hours after the start of treatment.Secondary outcomesprolonged treatment, mean clinical dehydration scores over the four hour study period, time to discharge, repeat visits to emergency department, adequate oral intake, and physician's comfort with discharge. Data from all randomised patients were included in an intention to treat analysis.Results114 patients were randomised to rapid rehydration and 112 to standard. One child was withdrawn because of severe hyponatraemia at baseline. There was no evidence of a difference between the rapid and standard rehydration groups in the proportions of participants who were rehydrated at two hours (41/114 (36%) v 33/112 (30%); difference 6.5% (95% confidence interval -5.7% to 18.7%; P=0.32). The results did not change after adjustment for weight, baseline dehydration score, and baseline pH (odds ratio 1.8, 0.90 to 3.5; P=0.10). The rates of prolonged treatment were similar (52% rapid v 43% standard; difference 8.9%, 21% to -5%; P=0.19). Although dehydration scores were similar throughout the study period (P=0.96), the median time to discharge was longer in the rapid group (6.3 v 5.0 hours; P=0.03).ConclusionsThere are no relevant clinical benefits from the administration of rapid rather than standard intravenous rehydration to haemodynamically stable children deemed to require intravenous rehydration. Trail registration Clinical Trials NCT00392145.

Project description:Gabapentin is used for the treatment of hot flashes and neuropathic pain in breast cancer survivors, and is commonly used off-label for the treatment of anxiety. Yet, clinical trial evidence to support the use of gabapentin for anxiety symptoms is lacking. In a randomized, double-blinded controlled trial we compared 300 mg gabapentin versus 900 mg gabapentin versus placebo. Subjects were 420 breast cancer patients who had completed all chemotherapy cycles. Anxiety traits and current (state) anxiety were measured using the Speilberger Strait-Trait Anxiety Inventory at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Pain was measured at baseline using a 10-point scale. Analyses included analysis of covariance and ordinary least squares regression. At 4 weeks, state anxiety change scores were significantly better for gabapentin 300 and 900 mg (p = 0.005) compared to placebo. The magnitude of improvement was proportional to baseline state anxiety. At 8 weeks, the anxiolytic effects of gabapentin compared to placebo persisted (p < 0.005). We found no significant interactions. The lower dose (300 mg) was associated with the best treatment outcomes for all patients except those with the highest baseline anxiety. Given its similar pharmacology, efficacy in the treatment of hot flashes, and low cost, gabapentin may provide a low cost and parsimonious alternative treatment choice for breast cancer survivors presenting in primary care practices with anxiety symptoms. Gabapentin is effective for hot flashes, and, therefore, may provide therapeutic benefit for both anxiety and hot flashes at a generic drug price. For patients reluctant to take a controlled substance, such as a benzodiazepine, gabapentin may offer an alternative therapy. Similarly, patients with a history of substance use may benefit from gabapentin without risk of addiction or abuse. For cancer survivors experiencing both hot flashes and anxiety, gabapentin may provide a single effective treatment for both and is an alternative therapy for anxiety for patients unwilling to take a benzodiazepine or those with a history of substance use.