Jack Wilkinson

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop November An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

Introductory online INSPECT-SR workshop. November 6th, 12-2pm UK-time. Free, places limited. BOOK: www.trybooking.com/uk/events/la...

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop December An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

And running again December 9th, 12-2 UK-time. www.trybooking.com/uk/events/la...

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop November An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

Introductory online INSPECT-SR workshop. November 6th, 12-2pm UK-time. Free, places limited. BOOK: www.trybooking.com/uk/events/la...

Trying to reproduce results from old papers can take you to interesting places

International #ResearchIntegrity conference 16-18 November 2025
Come to hear @elisabethbik.bsky.social Ivan Oransky @jamesheathers.bsky.social @retractionwatch.com Lisa Bero @liammannix.bsky.social @jdwilko.bsky.social @jacksonwryan.com +many others, stay for Sydney in late Spring @sydney.edu.au 🧪

Addictive Screen Use Trajectories and Suicidal Behaviors, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health in US Youths This cohort study identifies trajectories of addictive use of social media, mobile phones, and video games among US youths and examines their associations with suicidal behaviors and ideation and ment...

Nearly 3 months since I contacted both the authors and editor of @jama.com about failure to share data.

Article states data and code is available, but the github repo is empty.

Not private or partial, empty. Has never contained anything.

No replies from anyone.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

For Monday crowd. INSPECT-SR, a tool to help you identify problematic (inc. fraudulent) RCTs, now available.

INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings....

📚 INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

Science is not always as good as it appears on print in a research paper. Ready to be scared by finding nasty truths. Try out INSPECT-SR for checking the trustworthiness of trial results when you do systematic reviews.

Big team effort

The guidance document will be continually updated and improved in response to new research, evaluation, and user feedback. There is a link to an anonymous feedback survey in the guidance, so you can go and tell us what we got wrong.

People seem to have found it useful for non-randomised studies too - a few of the checks will be less useful. Give us time, a version for NRSI will come…

A detailed guidance document and editable template are available here: osf.io/b74wj/files/...

The tool guides the reviewer through a series of checks to help them make a judgement about a trial’s trustworthiness. This will assist in the identification of problematic (including fraudulent) RCTs, so they can be excluded from systematic reviews (and hopefully retracted).

INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings....

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

INSPECT-SR: A tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials.

Not sure what is more disappointing. This, or, after playing for 230 hours over four months, the realisation that Blue Prince does not have a satisfying conclusion.

It did not 🙁

A further problem is illustrated by the authors equating no treatment with placebo. For example, describing their second assumption, they state, ‘Implicit in this notation is that there is a single version of ‘no treatment’ that is consistently defined across all subjects in the RCT and external controls’ (p4). However, most clinical trials are add-on trials (Senn, 2002), even if not specifically identified as such. In placebo-controlled trials, one starts with standard of care and then subjects are either allocated to receive in addition the active treatment or a placebo to it. The statistical analysis plan for SUNFISH (F Hoffman-La-Roche Ltd, 2020) has a protocol summary as Appendix 1, which has this to say, ‘In addition to the study drug treatment, patients may continue to receive concomitant drug medication…’ (p186). This is very standard for clinical trials. It highlights that a key assumption in borrowing control data in this way is that there has been no evolution in the standard of care in the period since the trial.

One of the most common misunderstandings about the use and value of placebos in clinical RCTs, often made by both methodological experts and experienced trialists:

(from @stephensenn.bsky.social in academic.oup.com/jrsssa/advan...)

Hoping INSPECT-SR will appear on medRxiV at some point today…

Last chance to participate - this will close on Sunday pm UK time. These results will be used to formulate guidance on demonstrating promise of an intervention when applying for funding for an RCT, pilot, or feasibility trial.

A letter from myself and @jdwilko.bsky.social that expands on this a bit more. Thanks to Fertility and Sterility for the opportunity.

doi.org/10.1016/j.fe...

Thanks Andy. Could you email antonia.marsden@manchester.ac.uk and she will generate an invitation link for you?

How to demonstrate ‘promise of the intervention’ ahead of an RCT of the intervention? If you’d like to participate in the final round of the Promise Delphi, even if you didn’t do Round 1, then get in touch!

Thanks Ian. So you’re saying that me repeatedly deleting and reuploading probably hasn’t helped the issue? 🙂

Any OSF-heads have suggestions here? I noticed a typo in a public OSF document I had uploaded. So I deleted and uploaded the corrected version. But the new version (a Word document, same as the previous doc) won't display - 'Unexpected server response'. Any ideas?

Did you have a chance to catch @davidhosch.bsky.social, @neiloconnell.bsky.social, @jdwilko.bsky.social, @nadiasoliman.bsky.social, @lesleyuttley.bsky.social discuss “trustworthiness” in clinical trial data? Watch the recording here bit.ly/4luQVMS

Happening now!

Have you wanted to understand what is meant by “trustworthy” research? Attend this #webinar where @davidhosch.bsky.social, @neiloconnell.bsky.social, @jdwilko.bsky.social, @nadiasoliman.bsky.social, @lesleyuttley.bsky.social, and more outline how to produce reliable evidence bit.ly/44GBtGP

Should be available later this month!

🔍 Systematic reviewers are the first line of defense for trustworthy science! 🛡️💡

Here’s why they must lead the charge for #ResearchIntegrity 👇
👉 www.cochrane.org/about-us/new...

#EvidenceBased #MetaAnalysis #OpenScience 🧠📊