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.)
There are numerous reasons why faked clinical trial data are a concern: 1. Falsified data might lead to unsafe treatments for patients. 2. It might also lead to later researchers either pursuing a junk path or rejecting a useful path based on flawed information. 3. It might perpetuate crazy theories and crackpot treatments. 4. It might harm the reputation of science and research in the minds of the general public, the media and politicians.
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 so. Solving the problem requires cooperation by publishers, editors, institutions and reviewers.