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.

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.

Rooting out scientific misconduct.

Scientific misconduct is an issue rife with controversy, from its forms and definitions to the policies that guide how allegations are handled. A survey published nearly 15 years ago reported that 2% of researchers said they had fabricated or falsified data in their published work. This is not just an academic issue. Fake data promote ineffective or even dangerous treatments, for example, and thwart the discovery of real solutions for society. In the United States, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) is tasked with rooting out misconduct in research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Last October, ORI proposed changes to how it functions. The agency's recommendations-the first since 2005-have evoked mixed reactions, but the real problem is that ORI is underfunded and lacks the resources and authority needed to make a difference. Unless its charter is revised by Congress, the ORI can sadly do little more than tinker at the edges of scientific fraud.

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 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, 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.

Rebalancing commercial and public interests in prioritizing biomedical, social and environmental aspects of health through defining and managing conflicts of interest.

Biomedical research is intended to benefit human beings and their health. Toward that end, scientific norms involve examining and criticizing the work of others and prioritizing questions that should be studied. Yet, in areas of health research where industry is active, it has often utilized well-honed strategies aimed at evading scientific standards and at dominating the research agenda, largely through its financial support and lack of transparency of its research practices. These tactics have now been documented to uniformly support industry products. Commercial entities are aided in this pursuit by public policy that has significantly embedded commercial interests and agendas into federal research funding and infrastructure. Therefore, to understand the resulting landscape and its effect on priority in health research agendas, traditional definitions of individual conflicts of interest (COI) and the less well developed institutional COI must be supplemented by a new construct of structural COI, largely operating as intellectual monopolies, in support of industry. These arrangements often result in financial and reputational resources that assure dominance of commercial priorities in research agendas, crowding out any other interests and ignoring justified returns to the public from investment of its tax dollars. There is no sustained attention to mechanisms by which public interests can be heard, normative issues raised, and then balanced with commercial interests which are transparently reported. Focus on research supporting approval of commercial products ignores social and environmental determinants of health. Commercial bias can invalidate regulatory research protections through obscuring valid risk-benefit ratios considered by IRBs.

Assessment of the Operational Characteristics of Research Ethics Committees in Ghana.

There were eighteen Research Ethics Committees (RECs) operating in Ghana as of December 2019 but no empirical assessment of their operational characteristics had been conducted. We assessed the characteristics of Ghanaian RECs using an existing Self-Assessment Tool for RECs in Developing Countries. We present results from nine RECs that participated in this nation-wide assessment. Our results indicate that the RECs are generally adherent to the recommendations in the Tool including being composed of members with diverse expertise. They also reviewed and approved research protocols as well as had access to some limited funding for their activities. There is no national policy on research human protections or an ethics authority to regulate the activities of the RECs. We recommend the establishment of this authority in Ghana while encouraging institutions to sustain efforts aimed at making their RECs operate independently.

Should the Regulation of Research Misconduct Be Integrated with the Ethics Framework Promulgated in The Belmont Report?

The federal research misconduct regulations finalized in 2005 did not incorporate important principles regarding human subjects protections articulated in The Belmont Report, yet research misconduct can involve harms to research subjects and to subsequent patients whose treatments are based on false research findings. Consistency with the Belmont principles would require assuring regular monitoring to detect research misconduct, tracing effects of research misconduct on trial participants and informing them of these effects, and assuring timely correction of published reports of research findings if research misconduct related to the study was subsequently discovered. Research misconduct has historically been viewed as a matter for the scientific community to manage; it is actually a threat to the welfare of human subjects and ethically ought to be treated as such.

Institutional Approaches to Research Integrity in Ghana.

Research misconduct (RM) remains an important problem in health research despite decades of local, national, regional, and international efforts to eliminate it. The ultimate goal of every health research project, irrespective of setting, is to produce trustworthy findings to address local as well as global health issues. To be able to lead or participate meaningfully in international research collaborations, individual and institutional capacities for research integrity (RI) are paramount. Accordingly, this paper concerns itself not only with individuals' research skills but also with institutional and national policies and governance. Such policies and governance provide an ethical scaffold for the production of knowledge and structure incentives. This paper's operational definition of research therefore draws from Institute of Medicine's articulation of health research as an inquiry that aims to produce knowledge about the structure, processes, or effects of personal health services; and from an existing health systems framework. The paper reviews the research regulatory environment and the ethics apparatus in Ghana, and describes a project jointly undertaken by Ghanaian researchers in collaboration with New York University to assess the perceived adequacy of current institutional practices, opportunities, and incentives for promoting RI.

Federal Right to Try: Where Is It Going?

Policy-makers, bioethicists, and patient advocates have been engaged in a fierce battle about the merits and potential harms of a federal right-to-try law. This debate about access to investigational medical products has raised profound questions about the limits of patient autonomy, appropriate government regulation, medical paternalism, and political rhetoric. For example, do patients have a right to access investigational therapies, as the right-to-try movement asserts? What is government's proper role in regulating and facilitating access to drugs that are still in development? In this review, we analyze the history of the right-to-try movement, review the arguments put forth by supporters and opponents of the legislation, and consider the movement's consequences. Two possible scenarios may emerge. One is that the right-to-try pathway may fail to meaningfully increase patient access to investigational products. Alternatively, certain companies may attempt to rely on the federal right-to-try legislation to sell investigational products, taking advantage of the provision that allows for direct costs, as there is currently no clear mechanism for enforcement or monitoring of cost calculations.

Single-Patient Expanded Access Requests: IRB Professionals' Experiences and Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. RESULTS: Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests.

Of Straws, Camels, Research Regulation, and IRBs.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have become beleaguered by a growth in responsibilities related to research oversight in the past several decades. A number of regulatory bodies have appeared in response to these novel and complex responsibilities, seeking to respond to among other issues, conflicts of interest, new technologies, and the potential misuse of research findings. Here, we examine several examples of these novel regulatory bodies as well as a number of concerns related to them that have been largely unacknowledged. Evidence suggests that there can be disharmony and conflicts between these regulatory bodies and IRBs, a lack of clarity with regard to their roles and responsibilities, as well as shortcomings within these entities that, at times, look a lot like the worries that have long been raised in relation to IRBs. We offer a brief discussion of how some of these concerns might be ameliorated, either through a significant restructuring of the system of research oversight, or perhaps through smaller changes to these regulatory bodies.

Correctable Myths About Research Misconduct in the Biomedical Sciences.

A recent National Academy report on research integrity noted that policies are not evidence-based, with no formal entity responsible to attend to this deficit. Here we describe four areas of research misconduct (RM) regulations governing Public Health Service funded research that are empirically and/or ethically questionable. Policies for human subject protection, RM and conflict of interest are not harmonized, making it extremely difficult to deal with complex cases which often contain allegations in all of these areas. Second, detection of RM has depended entirely on whistleblowers in spite of evidence of significant under-reporting. Third, the scientific record is far from cleansed of the effects of falsified/fabricated work through current mechanisms of retraction. Finally, lack of fairness in the regulations may reflect lack of a Belmont Report-like document to guide ethics of RM policy. These issues are likely common in other countries. RM regulations should be harmonized with related regulations and their effectiveness tracked, open access to data for independent replication and improved statistical tests are an essential supplement to whistleblowers, correction of the scientific record will require a major effort, and further ethical analysis and guidance are as important as is empirical study for the improvement of RM regulations. Further consideration should be given to assigning current regulations for human subjects protection, RM and conflict of interest to a single authority and to the further development of a Belmont-like report of essential principles, for RM.

Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials.

Every institution that is involved in research with animals is expected to have in place policies and procedures for the management of allegations of noncompliance with the Animal Welfare Act and the U.S. Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. We present here a model set of recommendations for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials to ensure appropriate consideration of allegations of noncompliance with federal Animal Welfare Act regulations that carry a significant risk or specific threat to animal welfare. This guidance has 3 overarching aims: 1) protecting the welfare of research animals; 2) according fair treatment and due process to an individual accused of noncompliance; and 3) ensuring compliance with federal regulations. Through this guidance, the present work seeks to advance the cause of scientific integrity, animal welfare, and the public trust while recognizing and supporting the critical importance of animal research for the betterment of the health of both humans and animals.-Hansen, B. C., Gografe, S., Pritt, S., Jen, K.-L. C., McWhirter, C. A., Barman, S. M., Comuzzie, A., Greene, M., McNulty, J. A., Michele, D. E., Moaddab, N., Nelson, R. J., Norris, K., Uray, K. D., Banks, R., Westlund, K. N., Yates, B. J., Silverman, J., Hansen, K. D., Redman, B. Ensuring due process in the IACUC and animal welfare setting: considerations in developing noncompliance policies and procedures for institutional animal care and use committees and institutional officials.

Rethinking the Belmont Report?

This article reflects on the relevance and applicability of the Belmont Report nearly four decades after its original publication. In an exploration of criticisms that have been raised in response to the report and of significant changes that have occurred within the context of biomedical research, five primary themes arise. These themes include the increasingly vague boundary between research and practice, unique harms to communities that are not addressed by the principle of respect for persons, and how growing complexity and commodification in research have shed light on the importance of transparency. The repercussions of Belmont's emphasis on the protection of vulnerable populations is also explored, as is the relationship between the report's ethical principles and their applications. It is concluded that while the Belmont Report was an impressive response to the ethical issues of its day, the field of research ethics involving human subjects may have outgrown it.

Commentary: Legacy of the Commission on Research Integrity.

20 years ago, the Report of the Commission on Research Integrity (also known as the Ryan Commission after its chair) was submitted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and to House and Senate Committees. As directed in enabling legislation, the Commission had provided recommendations on a new definition of research misconduct, oversight of scientific practices, and development of a regulation to protect whistleblowers. Reflecting the ethos of the time, the Commission recommended that institutions receiving Public Health Service research funding should provide oversight of all but the most egregious misconduct. The suggested definition of research misconduct was organized around misappropriation, interference and misrepresentation, which would have addressed collaborative/authorship disputes and sabotage in scientific laboratories, both of which remain unaddressed in current policy. The Commission also recommended the Whistleblower Bill of Rights and Responsibilities which would have authorized remedies for whistleblowers who experienced retaliation and sanctions against retaliators. Response from the scientific community was highly critical, and none of the Commission's recommendations was accepted. No new body has examined issues within the Commission's charge, there has been no significant Congressional or public pressure to do so, institutions have not been able to sustain standards that would have avoided current concerns about bias and irreproducibility in research, and there is still no entity in science capable of addressing issues assigned to the Commission and other urgent issues.

Institutional Review Boards as Arbiters of Expanded Access to Unapproved Drugs: Time for a Change?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are one of the bodies charged with prospectively reviewing compassionate use, the hopefully therapeutic use of an unapproved drug in a seriously ill or dying patient who has no other treatment options. However, there are ethical issues in assigning this role to a body whose primary purpose is to review research proposals. The role of IRBs with regard to compassionate use must be examined and potentially revised.