World

Rush to publish COVID-19 research saw mistakes in top medical journals triple, study finds

Advertisement


New Australian analysis has introduced into query the moral and fact-checking requirements of the world’s most influential medical journals throughout the coronavirus pandemic.

The report, printed within the Medical Journal of Australia at present, discovered one in 5 COVID-19 research printed by the journals throughout the first 5 months of the pandemic had corrections issued after publication.

Advertisement

This compares to 7.4 per cent — or roughly one in each 13 research — printed on the identical time final yr.

This quantities to a three-fold improve within the variety of errors not picked up throughout the often stringent assessment course of previous to publication.

Advertisement

In contrast, no such retractions had been made in 2019.

The examine’s lead writer, College of Queensland’s Professor Michael Reade, informed 9.com.au there had been widespread hypothesis about compromised requirements of medical literature within the flurry to discover a COVID-19 treatment, however this report was the primary to quantify this.

Advertisement

The outcomes of the Queensland researchers’ evaluation had been printed within the Medical Journal of Australia at present.

Novel Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 This transmission electron microscope picture reveals SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, remoted from a affected person within the U.S. Virus particles are proven rising from the floor of cells cultured within the lab. The spikes on the outer fringe of the virus particles give coronaviruses their identify, crown-like. Credit score: NIAID-RML (AP/NIAID-RML)

5 medical journals thought-about to be most crucial to informing international well being coverage and scientific practices had been examined: The Lancet, New England Journal of Medication, JAMA, The BMJ and Annals of Inner Medication.

Advertisement

The evaluation in contrast 134 analysis papers printed between January 1 and Might 31 this yr to 54 printed throughout the identical time interval final yr.

The findings present simply 5 per cent of the coronavirus trials had been randomised managed scientific trials — thought-about the “gold commonplace” of medical analysis — in comparison with 35 per cent of the 2019 trials.

Advertisement

Professor Reade mentioned this was unsurprising, given the brief timeframe because the COVID-19 pressure was found and the necessities of randomised managed trials.

Extra sudden, he says, was the drastically lowered timeframe given to assessment, approve and publish the trials.

Advertisement

The Journal of the American Medical Affiliation was the one journal to launch its knowledge for this.

On this journal, the common timeframe from first submission to the date of publication fell from 139 days to simply 23 days.

Advertisement

“This means that they weren’t being fairly so thorough, and had been letting issues via that they usually would not let via,” Professor Reade mentioned.

He famous that the variety of corrections subsequently issued — usually inside every week of the article being printed — strengthened this notion.

Advertisement

It additionally seems that in lots of situations commonplace moral tips weren’t adopted.

Near half of the COVID-19 research didn’t explicitly state consent was obtained from trial individuals.

Advertisement

Various articles additionally acknowledged that they had been granted exemptions from the requirement for moral assessment as a result of nature of the pandemic.

Professor Reade, who additionally chairs the Defence Pressure’s Navy Medication and Surgical procedure unit, mentioned it was extra important than ever that medical journals maintained their credibility.

Advertisement

“Within the new data age, it is an incredible factor that folks can disseminate data actually rapidly — you possibly can put a paper up on-line you possibly can learn this stuff actually rapidly,” he mentioned.

“However the different facet of that’s that by the point it will get right into a journal, if journals are going so as to add something to this course of it must be that they offer the stamp of approval that it is true.”

Advertisement

The Queensland researchers’ report made quite a lot of suggestions on learn how to tackle the obvious failures in analysis rigour throughout occasions of disaster.

These embody strategies that journals set up a two-track assessment course of for pandemic and non-pandemic analysis and the sharing of peer-reviews between reviewers and journals.

Advertisement



Source link

Advertisement
Advertisement

Related Articles

Back to top button