@article{SchmidGrieselFischeretal.2022,
  author    = {Schmid, Benedikt and Griesel, Mirko and Fischer, Anna-Lena and Romero, Carolina S. and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Weibel, Stephanie and Fichtner, Falk},
  title     = {Awake prone positioning, high-flow nasal oxygen and non-invasive ventilation as non-invasive respiratory strategies in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {2},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm11020391},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-255225},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Background: Acute respiratory failure is the most important organ dysfunction of COVID-19 patients. While non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen are frequently used, efficacy and safety remain uncertain. Benefits and harms of awake prone positioning (APP) in COVID-19 patients are unknown. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing HFNC vs. NIV and APP vs. standard care. We meta-analyzed data for mortality, intubation rate, and safety. Results: Five RCTs (2182 patients) were identified. While it remains uncertain whether HFNC compared to NIV alters mortality (RR: 0.92, 95\% CI 0.65-1.33), HFNC may increase rate of intubation or death (composite endpoint; RR 1.22, 1.03-1.45). We do not know if HFNC alters risk for harm. APP compared to standard care probably decreases intubation rate (RR 0.83, 0.71-0.96) but may have little or no effect on mortality (RR: 1.08, 0.51-2.31). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is moderate to very low. There is no compelling evidence for either HFNC or NIV, but both carry substantial risk for harm. The use of APP probably has benefits although mortality appears unaffected.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{WeibelPoppReisetal.2023,
  author    = {Weibel, Stephanie and Popp, Maria and Reis, Stefanie and Skoetz, Nicole and Garner, Paul and Sydenham, Emma},
  title     = {Identifying and managing problematic trials: A research integrity assessment tool for randomized controlled trials in evidence synthesis},
  series = {Research Synthesis Methods},
  volume    = {14},
  journal   = {Research Synthesis Methods},
  number    = {3},
  doi       = {10.1002/jrsm.1599},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-318236},
  pages     = {357 -- 369},
  year      = {2023},
  abstract  = {Evidence synthesis findings depend on the assumption that the included studies follow good clinical practice and results are not fabricated or false. Studies which are problematic due to scientific misconduct, poor research practice, or honest error may distort evidence synthesis findings. Authors of evidence synthesis need transparent mechanisms to identify and manage problematic studies to avoid misleading findings. As evidence synthesis authors of the Cochrane COVID-19 review on ivermectin, we identified many problematic studies in terms of research integrity and regulatory compliance. Through iterative discussion, we developed a research integrity assessment (RIA) tool for randomized controlled trials for the update of this Cochrane review. In this paper, we explain the rationale and application of the RIA tool in this case study. RIA assesses six study criteria: study retraction, prospective trial registration, adequate ethics approval, author group, plausibility of methods (e.g., randomization), and plausibility of study results. RIA was used in the Cochrane review as part of the eligibility check during screening of potentially eligible studies. Problematic studies were excluded and studies with open questions were held in awaiting classification until clarified. RIA decisions were made independently by two authors and reported transparently. Using the RIA tool resulted in the exclusion of >40\% of studies in the first update of the review. RIA is a complementary tool prior to assessing "Risk of Bias" aiming to establish the integrity and authenticity of studies. RIA provides a platform for urgent development of a standard approach to identifying and managing problematic studies.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RiemerKrankeHelfetal.2021,
  author    = {Riemer, Manuel and Kranke, Peter and Helf, Antonia and Mayer, Debora and Popp, Maria and Schlesinger, Tobias and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Trial registration and selective outcome reporting in 585 clinical trials investigating drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting},
  series = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  volume    = {21},
  journal   = {BMC Anesthesiology},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12871-021-01464-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-265518},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: Selective outcome reporting in clinical trials introduces bias in the body of evidence distorting clinical decision making. Trial registration aims to prevent this bias and is suggested by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) since 2004. Methods: The 585 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1965 and 2017 that were included in a recently published Cochrane review on antiemetic drugs for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting were selected. In a retrospective study, we assessed trial registration and selective outcome reporting by comparing study publications with their registered protocols according to the 'Cochrane Risk of bias' assessment tool 1.0. Results: In the Cochrane review, the first study which referred to a registered trial protocol was published in 2004. Of all 585 trials included in the Cochrane review, 334 RCTs were published in 2004 or later, of which only 22\% (75/334) were registered. Among the registered trials, 36\% (27/75) were pro- and 64\% (48/75) were retrospectively registered. 41\% (11/27) of the prospectively registered trials were free of selective outcome reporting bias, 22\% (6/27) were incompletely registered and assessed as unclear risk, and 37\% (10/27) were assessed as high risk. Major outcome discrepancies between registered and published high risk trials were a change from the registered primary to a published secondary outcome (32\%), a new primary outcome (26\%), and different outcome assessment times (26\%). Among trials with high risk of selective outcome reporting 80\% favoured at least one statistically significant result. Registered trials were assessed more often as 'overall low risk of bias' compared to non-registered trials (64\% vs 28\%). Conclusions: In 2017, 13 years after the ICMJE declared prospective protocol registration a necessity for reliable clinical studies, the frequency and quality of trial registration in the field of PONV is very poor. Selective outcome reporting reduces trustworthiness in findings of clinical trials. Investigators and clinicians should be aware that only following a properly registered protocol and transparently reporting of predefined outcomes, regardless of the direction and significance of the result, will ultimately strengthen the body of evidence in the field of PONV research in the future.},
  language  = {en}
}