title: How do authors of systematic reviews deal with research malpractice and misconduct in original studies? A cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To study whether systematic reviewers apply procedures to counter-balance some common forms of research malpractice such as not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes, and to see whether they identify and report misconduct.
  
  
  METHODS
  Cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.
  
  
  METHODS
  118 systematic reviews published in four journals (Ann Int Med, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet), and the Cochrane Library, in 2013.
  
  
  METHODS
  Number (%) of reviews that applied procedures to reduce the impact of: (1) publication bias (through searching of unpublished trials), (2) selective outcome reporting (by contacting the authors of the original studies), (3) duplicate publications, (4) sponsors' and (5) authors' conflicts of interest, on the conclusions of the review, and (6) looked for ethical approval of the studies. Number (%) of reviewers who suspected misconduct are reported. The procedures applied were compared across journals.
  
  
  RESULTS
  80 (68%) reviewers confirmed their data. 59 (50%) reviews applied three or more procedures; 11 (9%) applied none. Unpublished trials were searched in 79 (66%) reviews. Authors of original studies were contacted in 73 (62%). Duplicate publications were searched in 81 (69%). 27 reviews (23%) reported sponsors of the included studies; 6 (5%) analysed their impact on the conclusions of the review. Five reviews (4%) looked at conflicts of interest of study authors; none of them analysed their impact. Three reviews (2.5%) looked at ethical approval of the studies. Seven reviews (6%) suspected misconduct; only 2 (2%) reported it explicitly. Procedures applied differed across the journals.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Only half of the systematic reviews applied three or more of the six procedures examined. Sponsors, conflicts of interest of authors and ethical approval remain overlooked. Research misconduct is sometimes identified, but rarely reported. Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed.
authors.affiliation: Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Nadia
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Elia
authors.affiliation: Cochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Lausanne, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Erik
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: von Elm
authors.affiliation: Institute Guillaume Belluard, Cran Gevrier, France.
authors.forename: Alexandra
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Chatagner
authors.affiliation: Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Münster, Münster, Germany.
authors.forename: Daniel M
authors.initials: DM
authors.lastname: Pöpping
authors.affiliation: Division of Anaesthesiology, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
authors.forename: Martin R
authors.initials: MR
authors.lastname: Tramèr
mesh_terms: D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D008318:Malpractice; D017594:Publication Bias; D012106:Research / Q000592:standards*; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires
keywords: ETHICS (see Medical Ethics); misconduct; systematic review