This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

Problematic studies, including those affected by human error or research misconduct, can distort the evidence that systematic reviews rely on and, in turn, influence treatment guidelines. This can lead to inaccurate or even harmful recommendations. A recent example was a review of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Some of the trials used in the systematic reviews were not authentic, according to health authorities in the U.S., U.K. and EU. Subsequent high-quality trials suggested little or no benefit.

Problems with a trial can go unrecognized for years, and many trials are never formally retracted, making the true scale of the issue hard to pin down. Reviewers have historically had only limited, inconsistent ways to assess trial trustworthiness. The INSPECT-SR tool fills that gap with a rigorously developed, systematic and transparent method.

Developed by researchers at the University of Manchester, Cochrane and the University of Colorado, in collaboration with more than 40 institutions worldwide, INSPECT-SR guides reviewers through 21 structured checks across four domains: post-publication notices; study conduct, governance and transparency; text and figures; and study results. The work is published in BMJ.

Dr. Jack Wilkinson, lead researcher, said, "More than 150 integrity and health research experts from around the world have contributed to the development of INSPECT-SR.

Source link