PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Wilkinson, Jack AU - Heal, Calvin AU - Antoniou, George A. AU - Flemyng, Ella AU - Alfirevic, Zarko AU - Avenell, Alison AU - Barbour, Virginia AU - Brown, Nicholas J L AU - Carlisle, John AU - Clarke, Mike AU - Dicker, Patrick AU - Dumville, Jo AU - Grey, Andrew AU - Grohmann, Steph AU - Gurrin, Lyle C AU - Hayden, Jill A AU - Heathers, James AU - Hunter, Kylie E AU - Lasserson, Toby AU - Lam, Emily AU - Lensen, Sarah AU - Li, Tianjing AU - Li, Wentao AU - Loder, Elizabeth AU - Lundh, Andreas AU - Meyerowitz-Katz, Gideon AU - Mol, Ben W AU - O’Connell, Neil E AU - Parker, Lisa AU - Redman, Barbara K. AU - Seidler, Anna Lene AU - Sheldrick, Kyle A AU - Sydenham, Emma AU - Torgerson, David J AU - van Wely, Madelon AU - Wang, Rui AU - Bero, Lisa AU - Kirkham, Jamie J TI - Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions AID - 10.1101/2023.09.21.23295626 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2023.09.21.23295626 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.09.21.23295626.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/11/13/2023.09.21.23295626.full AB - 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.Competing Interest StatementJW, CH, GA, LB, JJK declare funding from NIHR (NIHR203568) in relation to this work. LB additionally declares The University of Colorado receives remuneration for service as Senior Research Integrity Editor, Cochrane. WL, ALS, and RW declare funding from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grants (GNT2016729, GNT2009432, GNT2009767). EF, TLa declare employment by Cochrane. Tla additionally declares authorship of a chapter in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and that he is a developer of standards for Cochrane intervention reviews (MECIR). ES declares that she was a member of the Cochrane scientific misconduct policy advisory group. ZA declares he is a member of the Cochrane Library Editorial Board, and PI on a grant from Children Investment Foundation Fund to University of Liverpool to investigate research integrity of clinical trials related to nutritional supplements in pregnancy. TLi is supported by grant UG1 EY020522 from the National Eye Institute, National Institutes of Health. MC declares that he is Co-ordinating Editor for the Cochrane Methodology Review Group. AA declares that The Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, is funded by the Health and Social Care Directorates of the Scottish Government.Funding StatementThis research is funded by the NIHR Research for Patient Benefit programme (NIHR203568). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Ethics committee/IRB of University of Manchester waived ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesThis is a research protocol. Datasets arising from the project will be made freely available.