Findings from clinical trials are summarized in Cochrane’s systematic reviews, which guide medical treatment.Credit: Nathan Posner/Anadolu Agency via GettyA huge collaboration has confirmed growing concerns that fake or flawed research is polluting medical systematic reviews, which summarize evidence from multiple clinical trials and shape treatment guidelines worldwide.

临床试验的结果总结在Cochrane的系统评价中，该评价指导医疗。信贷：内森·波斯纳（NathanPosner）/阿纳多鲁（Anadolu）机构通过盖蒂亚（GettyA）的巨大合作证实，人们越来越担心虚假或有缺陷的研究正在污染医学系统评价，该评价总结了来自多个临床试验的证据，并塑造了全球治疗指南。

The study is part of an effort to address the problem by creating a short checklist that will help researchers to spot untrustworthy trials. Combined with automated integrity tools, this could help those conducting systematic reviews to filter out flawed work – in medicine and beyond.In the study, which has taken two years and was posted on 26 November to the medRxiv preprint server1, a team of more than 60 researchers trawled through 50 systematic reviews published under the aegis of Cochrane, an organization renowned for its gold-standard reviews of medical evidence.After applying a barrage of checks, the authors — many of whom are themselves editors or authors of Cochrane reviews — reported that they had “some concerns” about 25% of the clinical trials in the reviews, and “serious concerns” about 6% of them.The study can’t provide an overall estimate of problematic trials in Cochrane reviews because the sample selected — for the purpose of trialling integrity checks — wasn’t random or representative, says co-author Lisa Bero, a senior research-integrity editor at Cochrane.Still, “we definitely picked up some dodgy trials”, says Jack Wilkinson, a health and biostatistics researcher at the University of Manchester, UK, who led the project, titled INSPECT-SR.

这项研究是通过创建一个简短的清单来解决这个问题的努力的一部分，该清单将帮助研究人员发现不可信的试验。结合自动化的完整性工具，这可以帮助那些进行系统评价的人过滤出有缺陷的工作-在医学和其他领域。这项研究历时两年，于11月26日发布在medRxiv预印本服务器1上，由60多名研究人员组成的团队在Cochrane（一家以医学证据金标准评论而闻名的组织）的支持下，对50篇系统评价进行了研究。在进行了一系列检查后，作者（其中许多人本身就是Cochrane评论的编辑或作者）报告说，他们对评论中25%的临床试验“有些担忧”，对其中6%的临床试验“严重担忧”。该研究的合著者、Cochrane高级研究诚信编辑丽莎·贝罗（LisaBero）表示，该研究无法对Cochrane评价中存在问题的试验提供总体估计，因为所选样本（用于试验诚信检查）不是随机的或具有代表性的。英国曼彻斯特大学健康与生物统计学研究人员杰克·威尔金森（JackWilkinson）领导了这个名为INSPECT-SR的项目，他说：“我们确实进行了一些狡猾的试验。”。

He adds that the proportion found in the study might be an overestimate, because some of the checks turned out to be subjective or difficult to im.

他补充说，研究中发现的比例可能被高估了，因为一些检查结果是主观的或难以即时监测。