Cited by 50Academic Publishing and Open AccessMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation

Open access
Bero, Lisa, Lawrence, Rosa, Leslie, Louis, Chiu, Kellia, McDonald, Sally, Page, Matthew J, Grundy, Quinn, Parker, Lisa +3 more·2021·BMJ Open

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Objective: To compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: International medical literature. Participants: Preprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020. Main outcome measures: Study characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably). Results: Of 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications. At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study. Conclusions: The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051821

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [29]Gautret P, Lagier J-C, Parola P, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents 2020; 56: 105949. 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949 32205204 PMC7102549 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bero, L., Lawrence, R., Leslie, L., Chiu, K., McDonald, S., Page, M. J., Grundy, Q., Parker, L., Boughton, S., Kirkham, J. J., & Featherstone, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
Corresponding author
Bero, Lisa
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2021-07
Volume
11
Issue
7
Pages
e051821
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3182452186
Cited by
50
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 6
FWCI
9.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
  • The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Keywords
COVID-19 pandemic, preprints, journal publishing, outcome reporting, statistical significance, subgroup analysis, follow-up duration
MeSH terms
Preprints as Topic, SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 Drug Treatment, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Coronavirus Infections

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