How can we make sure that medical trials reported in the scientific literature are real? It is surprisingly hard — but not impossible.
In mid-2021, a handful of meta-analyses looked at the use of ivermectin, a drug to treat people infected with parasitic worms, against COVID-19. The analyses included data suggesting it was effective, which came from clinical trials that almost certainly did not happen as described. (Problems detected in reported trials include copied data, results for patients who died before the trial began, and disputes about whether a trial occurred at all.)
A few weeks later, a meta-analysis by Cochrane, an international group that specializes in reviewing evidence in medicine and health, found that ivermectin had not been shown to be effective (M. Popp et al. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 7, CD015017; 2021). That analysis took several steps to exclude fraudulent studies. But confusion and distrust continue.
In my view, most reported clinical trials are conducted properly, but fraudulent studies are still rife, and not confined to COVID-19. An analysis of trial manuscripts submitted to the journal Anaesthesia found that upwards of 40% probably contained false patient data (J. B. Carlisle Anaesthesia 76, 472–479; 2021).
I study bias in the design, conduct and publication of research. I have been part of a years-long initiative to exclude fraudulent studies from Cochrane’s reviews. Detecting fake studies is difficult; so is implementing policies to do...
By JAMELLE BOUIE Donald Trump knew as well as anyone that he had lost the 2020 presidential election fair and square. He knew there was no conspiracy to commit voter fraud — no mysterious mail bal...