@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{ReisPoppSchmidetal.2021,
  author    = {Reis, Stefanie and Popp, Maria and Schmid, Benedikt and Stegemann, Miriam and Metzendorf, Maria-Inti and Kranke, Peter and Meybohm, Patrick and Weibel, Stephanie},
  title     = {Safety and efficacy of intermediate- and therapeutic-dose anticoagulation for hospitalised patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis},
  series = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  volume    = {11},
  journal   = {Journal of Clinical Medicine},
  number    = {1},
  issn      = {2077-0383},
  doi       = {10.3390/jcm11010057},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-252285},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Background: COVID-19 patients are at high thrombotic risk. The safety and efficacy of different anticoagulation regimens in COVID-19 patients remain unclear. Methods: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermediate- or therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 irrespective of disease severity. To assess efficacy and safety, we meta-analysed data for all-cause mortality, clinical status, thrombotic event or death, and major bleedings. Results: Eight RCTs, including 5580 patients, were identified, with two comparing intermediate- and six therapeutic-dose anticoagulation to standard thromboprophylaxis. Intermediate-dose anticoagulation may have little or no effect on any thrombotic event or death (RR 1.03, 95\% CI 0.86-1.24), but may increase major bleedings (RR 1.48, 95\% CI 0.53-4.15) in moderate to severe COVID-19 patients. Therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may decrease any thrombotic event or death in patients with moderate COVID-19 (RR 0.64, 95\% CI 0.38-1.07), but may have little or no effect in patients with severe disease (RR 0.98, 95\% CI 0.86-1.12). The risk of major bleedings may increase independent of disease severity (RR 1.78, 95\% CI 1.15-2.74). Conclusions: Certainty of evidence is still low. Moderately affected COVID-19 patients may benefit from therapeutic-dose anticoagulation, but the risk for bleeding is increased.},
  language  = {en}
}