Distributions of baseline categorical variables were different from the expected distributions in randomized trials with integrity concerns

Statistical techniques to assess publication integrity in groups of randomized trials: a narrative review

OBJECTIVES

To describe statistical tools available for assessing publication integrity of groups of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Narrative review.

RESULTS

Freely available statistical tools have been developed that compare the observed distributions of baseline variables with the expected distributions that would occur if successful randomization occurred. For continuous variables, the tools assess baseline means, baseline P values, and the occurrence of identical means and/or standard deviation. For categorical variables, they assess baseline P values, frequency counts for individual or all variables, numbers of trial participants randomized or withdrawing, and compare reported with independently calculated P values. The tools have been used to identify publication integrity concerns in RCTs from individual groups, and performed at an acceptable level in discriminating intentionally fabricated baseline summary data from genuine RCTs. The tools can be used when concerns have been raised about RCT(s) from an individual/group and when the whole body of their work is being examined, when conducting systematic reviews, and could be adapted to aid screening of RCTs at journal submission.

CONCLUSION

Statistical tools are useful for the assessment of publication integrity of groups of RCTs.

Responses to concerns raised about publications don't address the concerns raised

Recently in the Journal, Amanda Williams described her experience of raising concerns about a group of trials with "untrustworthy data". We were inspired by the work of Williams and colleagues to examine these and other trials by the same research group. Similar to Williams, we found that the patterns of reported data differed from the patterns expected to arise from valid randomisation. We also identified a high proportion of reported baseline p-values for categorial variables that differed from independently calculated p-values. We reported these findings to the affected journals but none of the concerns were addressed and no action will be taken about the majority. Despite the large number of unresolved concerns about these trials, readers will be unaware of the issues, which seems entirely unsatisfactory.