Caveat emptor: The combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services

Tianjing Li, Evan R Mayo-Wilson, Nicole Fusco, Hwanhee Hong, Kay Dickersin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ("multiplicity"). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number497
JournalTrials
Volume19
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 17 2018

Fingerprint

Health Services
Public Health
Clinical Trials
Health
Information Storage and Retrieval
Decision Making
Delivery of Health Care
Research

Keywords

  • Multiplicity
  • Reproducibility
  • Selective reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Caveat emptor : The combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services. / Li, Tianjing; Mayo-Wilson, Evan R; Fusco, Nicole; Hong, Hwanhee; Dickersin, Kay.

In: Trials, Vol. 19, No. 1, 497, 17.09.2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{90180fa50cbb481aa97e3e17aefbc5b4,
title = "Caveat emptor: The combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services",
abstract = "Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ({"}multiplicity{"}). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.",
keywords = "Multiplicity, Reproducibility, Selective reporting",
author = "Tianjing Li and Mayo-Wilson, {Evan R} and Nicole Fusco and Hwanhee Hong and Kay Dickersin",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1186/s13063-018-2888-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "19",
journal = "Trials",
issn = "1745-6215",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Caveat emptor

T2 - The combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Health and Health Services

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Mayo-Wilson, Evan R

AU - Fusco, Nicole

AU - Hong, Hwanhee

AU - Dickersin, Kay

PY - 2018/9/17

Y1 - 2018/9/17

N2 - Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ("multiplicity"). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

AB - Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ("multiplicity"). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

KW - Multiplicity

KW - Reproducibility

KW - Selective reporting

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053495687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053495687&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13063-018-2888-9

DO - 10.1186/s13063-018-2888-9

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30223876

AN - SCOPUS:85053495687

VL - 19

JO - Trials

JF - Trials

SN - 1745-6215

IS - 1

M1 - 497

ER -