Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher

International multistakeholder consensus statement on post-publication integrity issues in randomized clinical trials by Cairo Consensus Group

The number of retractions of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) following post-publication allegations of misconduct is increasing. To address this issue, we aimed to establish an international multistakeholder consensus on post-publication integrity concerns related to RCTs. After prospective registration (https://osf.io/njksm), we assembled a multidisciplinary stakeholder group comprising 48 participants from 18 countries across six continents, recruited using a curated list of journal editors and snowballing. An underpinning evidence synthesis collated 89 articles related to post-publication integrity concerns. Integrity statements related to RCTs created were subjected to anonymized two-round Delphi survey. A hybrid face-to-face-online consensus development meeting was convened to consolidate the consensus. The response rates of the two Delphi survey rounds were 65% (31/48) and 67% (32/ 48), respectively. There were 101 and 41 statements in the first and second Delphi rounds, respectively. After the two Delphi rounds and the consensus development meeting, consensus was achieved on 104 statements consolidated to 84 after merging, editing, and removing duplicates. This set of statements included general aspects (n = 9), journal instructions (n = 14), editorial and peer review (n = 7), correspondence and complaints (n = 4), investigations for integrity concerns (n = 16), decisions and sanctions (n = 9), critical appraisal guidance (n = 1), systematic reviews of RCTs (n = 8), and research recommendations (n = 16). In conclusion, this international multistakeholder consensus statement aimed to underpin policies for preventing post-publication integrity concerns in RCT publications and assist in improving investigations of misconduct allegations.

Factors that influence recruitment to COVID-19 vaccine trials: a qualitative evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a unique period characterised by an extraordinary global virus spread. The collective effort to halt the transmission of the virus led to various public health initiatives, including a variety of COVID-19 vaccine trials. Many of these trials used adaptive methods to address the pandemic's challenges, such as the need for rapid recruitment. These adaptive methods allow for modifications to the trial procedures without undermining the trial's integrity, making the research process more flexible and efficient. However, recruiting participants for vaccine trials remains a considerable challenge. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) is to explore the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. Lessons learned from this could help shape future trials' design and conduct, particularly those conducted within a pandemic.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for qualitative studies and mixed methods studies with a qualitative component in the WHO COVID-19 Research Database, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Epistemomikos, Online Resource for Research in Clinical Trials (ORCCA), and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register. We used the best-fit framework synthesis approach and the Social Ecological Model as an a priori framework. We used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess our confidence in the review findings.

RESULTS

Five studies involving 539 participants were included. One of these studies included participants in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. In three of the studies, participants were asked hypothetically about their attitudes. Another study included people who had either not responded to or declined an invitation to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial. We developed six themes outlining the factors that influence a person's decision to participate in a COVID-19 vaccine trial: (1) personal gains, (2) perceived risk, (3) influence of family and community, (4) contributing for others, (5) institutional trust and mistrust, and (6) accessibility of the trial.

CONCLUSION

This review sheds light on how people perceive the potential personal, family, and community advantages of trial participation and how these perceptions may be weighed against concerns about vaccine safety. The findings also point toward specific aspects of trial methodology to consider when designing COVID-19 vaccine trials.

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

"The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities: A survey of the largest Italian academic community"

PURPOSE

The aim of the present work is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities in a vast multidisciplinary academic community to identify the most critical issues.

METHOD

To this purpose we planned a survey addressed to the entire academic research staff at "Sapienza" University of Rome, which represents the largest Italian academic community. A questionnaire consisting of both open and closed-ended questions was delivered to 4118 individuals in April 2021.

RESULTS

A total of 544 responses were collected. All academic roles were sufficiently represented in the study cohort. The median number of critical issues experienced by academic research staff was three. Among these, the three most frequently reported were related to: "Access to libraries / laboratories / research sites" (21.9%), "Limitation to stay abroad / study / research periods" (17.6%), "Progress of experimental work" (14.7%), with variable prevalence according to academic position and gender. Older subjects reported issues with "Projects' financial reporting" and "Expiration of acquired consumable material more frequently". The most common critical aspects reported in relation to the economic burden were: being "Unable to allocate funds" (31.4%), a "Reduction in clinical and scientific activity" (26.3%) and experiencing "Increased expenses (comprising private costs)" (21.2%) with no differences between genders. Researchers in Applied Sciences and Natural Sciences reported a higher frequency of problems in clinical and scientific activities, whereas increased expenses were reported also by researchers operating in the Humanities field. As a possible solution aimed at improving these issues, most subjects, especially those aged >45 years, indicated "Economic aid" (22.6%), "Reduction in bureaucracy" (19.9%) or "Enhancement of the scientific and clinical activities", whereas those aged ≤45 years felt that an increased duration and better access to PhD programs were to be prioritized.

CONCLUSION

Our findings highlight the most critical issues related to research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large academic community. The information achieved may be useful to identify researchers' needs and to design appropriate policies aimed at preparing research institutions for unexpected catastrophic events and limiting the negative impact on academic research activities.

Retracted publications in autism research are mostly concerned with ethical misconduct

BACKGROUND

As the prevalence of autism appears to increase, more research to guide effective diagnosis and intervention practices is needed. Findings disseminated through peer-reviewed publications are critical, but the number of retractions continues to rise. An understanding of retracted publications is imperative to ensure the body of evidence is corrected and current.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this analysis were to summarize key characteristics of retracted publications in autism research, examine the length of time between publication and retraction, and assess the extent journals are adhering to publishing ethical guidelines for reporting retracted articles.

METHODS

We searched five databases through 2021 (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Retraction Watch).

RESULTS

A total of 25 retracted articles were included in the analysis. Ethical misconduct accounted for the majority of retractions rather than scientific error. The shortest time to retraction was 2 months and the longest length was 144 months.

DISCUSSION

The time lag between publication and retraction since 2018 has improved considerably. Nineteen of the articles had retraction notices (76%), whereas six articles did not have a notice (24%).

CONCLUSION

These findings summarize errors of previous retractions and illuminate opportunities for researchers, journal publishers and librarians to learn from retracted publications.