Development of the individual participant data integrity tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data.

Increasing integrity concerns in medical research have prompted the development of tools to detect untrustworthy studies. Existing tools primarily assess published aggregate data (AD), though scrutiny of individual participant data (IPD) is often required to detect trustworthiness issues. Thus, we developed the IPD Integrity Tool for detecting integrity issues in randomised trials with IPD available. This manuscript describes the development of this tool. We conducted a literature review to collate and map existing integrity items. These were discussed with an expert advisory group; agreed items were included in a standardised tool and automated where possible. We piloted this tool in two IPD meta-analyses (including 116 trials) and conducted preliminary validation checks on 13 datasets with and without known integrity issues. We identified 120 integrity items: 54 could be conducted using AD, 48 required IPD, and 18 were possible with AD, but more comprehensive with IPD. An initial reduced tool was developed through consensus involving 13 advisors, featuring 11 AD items across four domains, and 12 IPD items across eight domains. The tool was iteratively refined throughout piloting and validation. All studies with known integrity issues were accurately identified during validation. The final tool includes seven AD domains with 13 items and eight IPD domains with 18 items. The quality of evidence informing healthcare relies on trustworthy data. We describe the development of a tool to enable researchers, editors, and others to detect integrity issues using IPD. Detailed instructions for its application are published as a complementary manuscript in this issue.

The Individual Participant Data Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials.

Increasing concerns about the trustworthiness of research have prompted calls to scrutinise studies' Individual Participant Data (IPD), but guidance on how to do this was lacking. To address this, we developed the IPD Integrity Tool to screen randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for integrity issues. Development of the tool involved a literature review, consultation with an expert advisory group, piloting on two IPD meta-analyses (including 73 trials with IPD), preliminary validation on 13 datasets with and without known integrity issues, and evaluation to inform iterative refinements. The IPD Integrity Tool comprises 31 items (13 study-level, 18 IPD-specific). IPD-specific items are automated where possible, and are grouped into eight domains, including unusual data patterns, baseline characteristics, correlations, date violations, patterns of allocation, internal and external inconsistencies, and plausibility of data. Users rate each item as having either no issues, some/minor issue(s), or many/major issue(s) according to decision rules, and justification for each rating is recorded. Overall, the tool guides decision-making by determining whether a trial has no concerns, some concerns requiring further information, or major concerns warranting exclusion from evidence synthesis or publication. In our preliminary validation checks, the tool accurately identified all five studies with known integrity issues. The IPD Integrity Tool enables users to assess the integrity of RCTs via examination of IPD. The tool may be applied by evidence synthesists, editors and others to determine whether an RCT should be considered sufficiently trustworthy to contribute to the evidence base that informs policy and practice.

Initial Oxygen Concentration for the Resuscitation of Infants Born at Less Than 32 Weeks' Gestation: A Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Resuscitation with lower fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) reduces mortality in term and near-term infants but the impact of this practice on very preterm infants is unclear. Objective: To evaluate the relative effectiveness of initial FiO2 on reducing mortality, severe morbidities, and oxygen saturations (SpO2) in preterm infants born at less than 32 weeks' gestation using network meta-analysis (NMA) of individual participant data (IPD). Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO ICTRP from 1980 to October 10, 2023. Study Selection: Eligible studies were randomized clinical trials enrolling infants born at less than 32 weeks' gestation comparing at least 2 initial oxygen concentrations for delivery room resuscitation, defined as either low (≤0.3), intermediate (0.5-0.65), or high (≥0.90) FiO2. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Investigators from eligible studies were invited to provide IPD. Data were processed and checked for quality and integrity. One-stage contrast-based bayesian IPD-NMA was performed with noninformative priors and random effects and adjusted for key covariates. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes were morbidities of prematurity and SpO2 at 5 minutes. Results: IPD were provided for 1055 infants from 12 of the 13 eligible studies (2005-2019). Resuscitation with high (≥0.90) initial FiO2 was associated with significantly reduced mortality compared to low (≤0.3) (odds ratio [OR], 0.45; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.23-0.86; low certainty) and intermediate (0.5-0.65) FiO2 (OR, 0.34; 95% CrI, 0.11-0.99; very low certainty). High initial FiO2 had a 97% probability of ranking first to reduce mortality. The effects on other morbidities were inconclusive. Conclusions and Relevance: High initial FiO2 (≥0.90) may be associated with reduced mortality in preterm infants born at less than 32 weeks' gestation compared to low initial FiO2 (low certainty). High initial FiO2 is possibly associated with reduced mortality compared to intermediate initial FiO2 (very low certainty) but more evidence is required.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

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 INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (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 and (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. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.