Fabricated data – should we quarantine? A novel tool for risk assessment is proposed
Open accessThe claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Gupta's checklist included authorship as one of the seven tests, with number of authors ≤3 as threshold for test positivity.
“It included authorship as one of the seven tests, with the number of authors ≤3 as the threshold for test positivity.”
From Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Gupta's 2020 editorial put forward an RCT integrity checklist combining seven tests with a score range of 0-11 and a threshold for checklist score positivity ≥5.
“In one example, Gupta's 2020 editorial 24 put forward an RCT integrity checklist combining seven tests with a score range of 0-11 and a threshold for checklist score positivity ≥5 (Figure 1b).”
From Integrity of randomized clinical trials: Performance of integrity tests and checklists requires assessment (2023) · cites this paper as [24]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
1 retracted
Shehata, N. A. A. (2019) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2019.05.044 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
RetractedIndividual participant data meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses based on aggregate data
Smith, C. T., Marcucci, M., Nevitt, S. J., Iorio, A., Sudell, M., Riley, R. D., Rovers, M. M., & Williamson, P. R. (2016) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000007.pub3 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Data integrity of 35 randomised controlled trials in women' health
Bordewijk, E. M., Wang, R., Askie, L. M., Gurrin, L. C., Thornton, J. G., van Wely, M., Li, W., & Mol, B. W. (2020) · European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology · doi:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2020.04.016 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Evidence for non‐random sampling in randomised, controlled trials by Yuhji Saitoh
Carlisle, J. B., & Loadsman, J. A. (2017) · Anaesthesia · doi:10.1111/anae.13650 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Khan, K. S., Fawzy, M., & Chien, P. F. W. (2023) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.14837 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gupta, J. K.
- Corresponding author
- Gupta, Janesh K.
- ORCID
- Gupta, Janesh K.
- Venue
- European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-06
- Volume
- 249
- Pages
- 70-71
- ISSN
- 0028-2243 (ISSN-L)
- 0301-2115
- PMC
- PMC7194586
- OpenAlex
- W3015333061
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2023: 8 · 2021: 1
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Benford’s Law and Fraud Detection
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Keywords
- fabricated data, data integrity, randomized controlled trials, research misconduct, risk assessment tools, patient recruitment
- MeSH terms
- Data Accuracy, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
