COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time¶
Goldacre, B., Drysdale, H., Dale, A., Milosevic, I., Slade, E., Hartley, P., Marston, C., et al. (2019). COMPare: a prospective cohort study correcting and monitoring 58 misreported trials in real time. Trials.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Cherry Picking
- The COMPare project (led by Ben Goldacre's team, 2015–2016) audited trials against their registered protocols and found that reported outcomes were routinely added or silently dropped relative to what had been pre-specified, exactly this selection operating in the wild.
This sourceThe COMPare audit: of 67 trials published in five leading journals over six weeks in late 2015, 87% had outcome-reporting discrepancies breaching CONSORT, with 365 undeclared novel outcomes (5.4 per trial) and pre-specified outcomes silently dropped - selective outcome reporting caught prospectively in the published literature.
SupportedVerified against the source
- The COMPare project (led by Ben Goldacre's team, 2015–2016) audited trials against their registered protocols and found that reported outcomes were routinely added or silently dropped relative to what had been pre-specified, exactly this selection operating in the wild.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:19b704afbbc7 · see in the full table