How skeptical are you of a trial that reports 100% of screened patients randomized, 100% of randomized completed, and 100% of completed have follow-up data?
-
Show this thread
-
Some basic further elucidation - parallel arm RCT, human subjects, time until follow-up more than 1 month after treatment initiation
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Ok, so most people think this is an issue for the paper What if I told you there were several GRIM inconsistencies in Table 1 (i.e. average values inconsistent with a stated sample size)?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @GidMK
I assume you’re reviewing a paper. How do you bring this up with an editor? Do you come out and say “I think the data are faked”? Or do you heavily hint at it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ValoisDuBins
Nope, this is published research. If I were reviewing, I would ask the authors to explain - during review, it's not an issue imo
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Not necessary for the data to be faked for there to be errors in the tables! Could just have miscalculated a few numbers, or given the wrong sample size in the paper. The issue is that, without explanation, it is impossible to distinguish easily made mistakes from fraud
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.