Affiliations 

  • 1 University of Granada, CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
  • 2 IbnSina (Sohag), Banon (Assiut), Amshaj (Sohag), and Qena (Qena) IVF Centers, Egypt
  • 3 RCSI & UCD Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia
  • 4 Rotunda Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
  • 5 San Cecilio University Hospital, Ibs Granada, CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
  • 6 Hospital Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBERESP, Madrid, Spain
  • 7 University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
  • 8 Al-Azhar University and Egyptian IVF-ET Center, Cairo, Egypt
  • 9 Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development, Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
  • 10 University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  • 11 BD Integrated Diagnostic Solutions, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA
  • 12 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  • 13 The Royal London Hospital, BartsHealth NHS Trust, London, UK
  • 14 Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt
  • 15 Cairo University and Egyptian IVF-ET Center, Cairo, Egypt
  • 16 Services Institute of Medical Sciences, Services Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan
  • 17 Aberdeen Fertility Center, Aberdeen Maternity Hospital, NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, UK
  • 18 Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA
  • 19 Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt
  • 20 University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, Modena, Italy
  • 21 Shangai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shangai, China
  • 22 University of Granada, Granada, Spain
  • 23 Eastern Mediterranean Association of Medical Editors (EMAME), Karachi, Pakistan
  • 24 Hospital Escuela Eva Perón de Granadero Baigorria, Grupo Oroño, Santa Fe, Argentina
  • 25 Guy's & St Thomas' Hospital Foundation Trust, London, UK
Int J Gynaecol Obstet, 2025 Jan 31.
PMID: 39887735 DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.16118

Abstract

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.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.