Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Trials. 2018 Sep 17;19(1):497. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2888-9.

Caveat emptor: the combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting.

Author information

1
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. tli19@jhu.edu.
2
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
3
Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, 2424 Erwin Road, Suite 1105, 11041 Hock Plaza, Durham, NC, 27705, USA.

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

PMID:
30223876
PMCID:
PMC6142307
DOI:
10.1186/s13063-018-2888-9
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for BioMed Central Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center