Meta-epidemiological study of publication integrity, and quality of conduct and reporting of randomized trials included in a systematic review of low back pain

Hayden, Jill A.; Ellis, Jenna; Ogilvie, Rachel; Boulos, Leah; Stanojevic, Sanja

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.01.020

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We disagree with their conclusion since (1) failure to retrieve quality work published in a predatory journal contributes to location bias and publications bias of which detrimental effects are well documented [ 9 – 11 ] and (2) retrieving poorly conducted research published in presumed predatory outlets that have not been vetted for accuracy, quality, or ethical approval poses harms to patients if applied by clinicians intending to use evidence-informed decision making [ 2 ]. Results from articles published in predatory journals have been included in systematic reviews previously and can alter findings and recommendations made based on knowledge synthesis [ 12 , 13 ]. The presence of predatory journals in databases has been increasing in recent years with Google Scholar and PubMed, one of the world’s leading biomedical databases, both including articles from predatory journals [ 12 , 14 ].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews appraise and synthesize the results from a body of literature. In healthcare, systematic reviews are also used to develop clinical practice guidelines. An increasingly common concern among systematic reviews is that they may unknowingly capture studies published in “predatory” journals and that these studies will be included in summary estimates and impact results, guidelines, and ultimately, clinical care. Findings There is currently no agreed-upon guidance that exists for how best to manage articles from predatory journals that meet the inclusion criteria for a systematic review. We describe a set of actions that authors of systematic reviews can consider when handling articles published in predatory journals: (1) detail methods for addressing predatory journal articles a priori in a study protocol, (2) determine whether included studies are published in open access journals and if they are listed in the directory of open access journals, and (3) conduct a sensitivity analysis with predatory papers excluded from the synthesis. Conclusion Encountering eligible articles published in presumed predatory journals when conducting a review is an increasingly common threat. Developing appropriate methods to account for eligible research published in predatory journals is needed to decrease the potential negative impact of predatory journals on healthcare.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sample size, incomplete information about the flow of the participants through the trial (i.e., flow chart), and the study's registration status (prospective, retrospective, unregistered) are variables that may influence both the risk of bias assessment and the effect size. In the recent study by Hayden et al 9 these variables showed a trend of association with the effect size in a similar subset of low back pain trials. Another source of potential confounding is the comparison intervention: it is well established that the type of comparison influences both the effect sizes 4,17 and the risk of bias.…”

Section: Causal Pathwaymentioning

confidence: 81%

“…The review evaluated the efficacy of exercise therapy interventions in adults with CLBP; they assessed pain intensity and functional limitations (as continuous variables) as their primary outcomes. The dataset from the study conducted by Hayden et al 9 will also be used to extract relevant data.…”

Section: Data Sourcementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, a meta-epidemiological study led by Hayden et al 9 investigated the association of research integrity characteristics (publication integrity, trial registration, high ROB, sample size and other features at the study level) and the effect size in a subgroup of RCTs included in a Cochrane review 10 on exercise therapy for CLBP published in 2021. The authors found an association between some study characteristics (such as sample size and the use of core outcome set) and the effect sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How does the risk of bias influence the effect sizes of exercise therapy in chronic low back pain randomised controlled trials? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Innocenti

Hayden

Salvioli

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and ObjectivesRisk of bias is a critical issue to consider when appraising studies. Generally, the higher the risk of bias of a study, the less confidence there will be that the results are valid. Considering that low back pain is recognized to have an extremely high disease burden; exercise therapy is one of the most frequently prescribed interventions for chronic low back pain (CLBP) and that most low back pain trials have methodological limitations that could bias treatment effect estimates; the objective of this study is to explore causal pathways between the sources of risk of bias and estimates of the treatment effect of exercise therapy interventions in CLBP trials.MethodsThe 249 RCTs included in the 2021 Cochrane review publication “Exercise therapy for chronic low back pain” will be included. The risk of bias will be evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (ROB 2). Causal pathways between the exposure (risk of bias domains) and our outcomes of interest (effect sizes for pain and functional limitations) will be explored through univariable and multivariable meta-regression models. These models will be adjusted for potential confounders (sample size, trial registration, incomplete flow chart information and treatment comparisons), exploring relevant interactions within each model. Additional and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore and test the robustness of the primary analyses.Ethics and disseminationA manuscript will be prepared and submitted for publication in an appropriate peer-reviewed journal upon study completion. We believe that the results of this investigation will be relevant to researchers paying more attention to the synthesis of the evidence to translate clinical implications to key stakeholders (healthcare providers and patients).

show abstract

“…It is a recurrent theme of interest and debate in the discussion of publishing through predatory outlets how these publications are affecting the scientific communities. Predatory journals have been accused of threatening the academic integrity as well as research publications (Angadi & Kaur, 2020; Hayden et al, 2021). Publications in predatory journals are characterized by lower study and reporting quality (Hayden et al, 2021).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles

Frandsen

2022

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scholars engage with so-called predatory or questionable journals for many different reasons. Among the contributing factors are monetary payoffs and the possibility of fast track faculty positions or promotion. It has been claimed that fast tracking promotion by using predatory publication outlets is an increasing problem. This study analyses the authors publishing in predatory journals with a focus on authors repeatedly publishing in predatory journals. In this study, a set of so-called predatory journals indexed in Scopus was used. The data included 243,396 authorships of articles and reviews published from 2004 to 2021 by 169,742 unique authors.This study finds that 55% of the authors publish in one of these journals only once, 34.5% publish 2-5 times in these journals, 6.3% publish in them 6-10 times, and 4.2% publish more than 10 times. Furthermore, this study finds that the mean and median number of articles and reviews is correlated with the number of articles and reviews in predatory journals. Finally, authors publishing in predatory journals do not confine themselves to these journals and also publish in validated journals as well.

show abstract

Meta-epidemiological study of publication integrity, and quality of conduct and reporting of randomized trials included in a systematic review of low back pain

Cited by 25 publications

References 22 publications

Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews

Dealing with predatory journal articles captured in systematic reviews

How does the risk of bias influence the effect sizes of exercise therapy in chronic low back pain randomised controlled trials? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

Authors publishing repeatedly in predatory journals: An analysis of Scopus articles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About