Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 261
Filter
1.
Med J Aust ; 220(8): 391, 2024 May 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38704752
2.
medRxiv ; 2024 Mar 25.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38585914

ABSTRACT

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.

4.
Med J Aust ; 220(4): 169, 2024 03 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38431826

Subject(s)
Attention , Humans
7.
Med J Aust ; 220(3): 111, 2024 02 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38368554
8.
Med J Aust ; 220(2): 59, 2024 02 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38310444

Subject(s)
Policy , Smoking , Humans , Health Policy
9.
Med J Aust ; 220(1): 3, 2024 01 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38219234
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...