OBJECTIVES: The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.
SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA: Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.
MAIN RESULTS: A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).
CONCLUSIONS: Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.
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.
METHODS: Baseline and 1-year follow-up data from 5800 participants in the PREDIMED-Plus study were used. Each participant's food intake was estimated using validated semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaires, and the adherence to MD using the Dietary Score. The influence of diet on environmental impact was assessed through the EAT-Lancet Commission tables. The influence of diet on environmental impact was assessed through the EAT-Lancet Commission tables. The association between MD adherence and its environmental impact was calculated using adjusted multivariate linear regression models.
RESULTS: After one year of intervention, the kcal/day consumed was significantly reduced (-125,1 kcal/day), adherence to a MD pattern was improved (+0,9) and the environmental impact due to the diet was significantly reduced (GHG: -361 g/CO2-eq; Acidification:-11,5 g SO2-eq; Eutrophication:-4,7 g PO4-eq; Energy use:-842,7 kJ; and Land use:-2,2 m2). Higher adherence to MD (high vs. low) was significantly associated with lower environmental impact both at baseline and one year follow-up. Meat products had the greatest environmental impact in all the factors analysed, both at baseline and at one-year follow-up, in spite of the reduction observed in their consumption.
CONCLUSIONS: A program promoting a MD, after one year of intervention, significantly reduced the environmental impact in all the factors analysed. Meat products had the greatest environmental impact in all the dimensions analysed.