Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · 5d

Introductory online INSPECT-SR workshop. November 6th, 12-2pm UK-time. Free, places limited. BOOK: www.trybooking.com/uk/events/la...

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop November

An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

www.trybooking.com

1 6 5

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · 5d

And running again December 9th, 12-2 UK-time. www.trybooking.com/uk/events/la...

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop December

An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

www.trybooking.com

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · 5d

Introductory online INSPECT-SR workshop. November 6th, 12-2pm UK-time. Free, places limited. BOOK: www.trybooking.com/uk/events/la...

Introduction to INSPECT-SR Training Workshop November

An introductory 2-hour online workshop will introduce participants to the INSPECT-SR tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled...

www.trybooking.com

1 6 5

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · 20d

Trying to reproduce results from old papers can take you to interesting places

8

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

Jennifer Byrne @jabyrnesci.bsky.social · 24d

International #ResearchIntegrity conference 16-18 November 2025
Come to hear @elisabethbik.bsky.social Ivan Oransky @jamesheathers.bsky.social @retractionwatch.com Lisa Bero @liammannix.bsky.social @jdwilko.bsky.social @jacksonwryan.com +many others, stay for Sydney in late Spring @sydney.edu.au 🧪

Simon Gandevia @simongandevia.bsky.social · 26d

International Research Integrity Conference researchintegrityconf.com has been moved to University of Sydney (Refectory and Cullen rooms) Nov 16-18th 2025. Registrations filling fast

International Research Integrity Conference | 16-18 November 2025, Sydney, Australia

researchintegrityconf.com

2 12 17

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · Sep 8

Nearly 3 months since I contacted both the authors and editor of @jama.com about failure to share data.

Article states data and code is available, but the github repo is empty.

Not private or partial, empty. Has never contained anything.

No replies from anyone.

jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...

Addictive Screen Use Trajectories and Suicidal Behaviors, Suicidal Ideation, and Mental Health in US Youths

This cohort study identifies trajectories of addictive use of social media, mobile phones, and video games among US youths and examines their associations with suicidal behaviors and ideation and ment...

jamanetwork.com

4 14 48

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 8

For Monday crowd. INSPECT-SR, a tool to help you identify problematic (inc. fraudulent) RCTs, now available.

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

INSPECT-SR: A tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials.

INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials

The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings....

www.medrxiv.org

9 17

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

ReproducibiliTea @reproducibilitea.org · Sep 6

📚 INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials

The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings....

www.medrxiv.org

5 8

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

Andreas Lundh @alundh.bsky.social · Sep 5

Science is not always as good as it appears on print in a research paper. Ready to be scared by finding nasty truths. Try out INSPECT-SR for checking the trustworthiness of trial results when you do systematic reviews.

1 6 10

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

Big team effort

1

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

The guidance document will be continually updated and improved in response to new research, evaluation, and user feedback. There is a link to an anonymous feedback survey in the guidance, so you can go and tell us what we got wrong.

1 2

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

People seem to have found it useful for non-randomised studies too - a few of the checks will be less useful. Give us time, a version for NRSI will come…

2

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

A detailed guidance document and editable template are available here: osf.io/b74wj/files/...

OSF

osf.io

1 1 3

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

The tool guides the reviewer through a series of checks to help them make a judgement about a trial’s trustworthiness. This will assist in the identification of problematic (including fraudulent) RCTs, so they can be excluded from systematic reviews (and hopefully retracted).

1 5

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

INSPECT-SR: A tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials.

INSPECT-SR: a tool for assessing trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials

The integrity of evidence synthesis is threatened by problematic randomised controlled trials (RCTs). These are RCTs where there are serious concerns about the trustworthiness of the data or findings....

www.medrxiv.org

3 34 66

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

Not sure what is more disappointing. This, or, after playing for 230 hours over four months, the realisation that Blue Prince does not have a satisfying conclusion.

1

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 5

It did not 🙁

1

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · Sep 5

One of the most common misunderstandings about the use and value of placebos in clinical RCTs, often made by both methodological experts and experienced trialists:

(from @stephensenn.bsky.social in academic.oup.com/jrsssa/advan...)

A further problem is illustrated by the authors equating no treatment with placebo. For example, describing their second assumption, they state, ‘Implicit in this notation is that there is a single version of ‘no treatment’ that is consistently defined across all subjects in the RCT and external controls’ (p4). However, most clinical trials are add-on trials (Senn, 2002), even if not specifically identified as such. In placebo-controlled trials, one starts with standard of care and then subjects are either allocated to receive in addition the active treatment or a placebo to it. The statistical analysis plan for SUNFISH (F Hoffman-La-Roche Ltd, 2020) has a protocol summary as Appendix 1, which has this to say, ‘In addition to the study drug treatment, patients may continue to receive concomitant drug medication…’ (p186). This is very standard for clinical trials. It highlights that a key assumption in borrowing control data in this way is that there has been no evolution in the standard of care in the period since the trial.

3 15 45

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Sep 4

Hoping INSPECT-SR will appear on medRxiV at some point today…

3 12

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Aug 20

Last chance to participate - this will close on Sunday pm UK time. These results will be used to formulate guidance on demonstrating promise of an intervention when applying for funding for an RCT, pilot, or feasibility trial.

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Aug 11

How to demonstrate ‘promise of the intervention’ ahead of an RCT of the intervention? If you’d like to participate in the final round of the Promise Delphi, even if you didn’t do Round 1, then get in touch!

4 2

Reposted by Jack Wilkinson

Darren Dahly @statsepi.bsky.social · Aug 12

A letter from myself and @jdwilko.bsky.social that expands on this a bit more. Thanks to Fertility and Sterility for the opportunity.

doi.org/10.1016/j.fe...

Nonrandomized studies of
interventions - complementary or
just convenient?
Schwarze et al. (1) present recommendations to improve the
quality of nonrandomized studies of interventions (NRSIs).
Given the methodological errors we regularly encounter
when reading and reviewing NRSIs in assisted reproductive
technologies (ART), we support the need for such
recommendations to help researchers better design,
analyze, and interpret these studies. That said, we are
concerned that those who require such guidance will,
almost by definition, not understand when the use of
NRSIs is warranted, or mistake them as viable alternatives
to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), despite reassurances
from Schwarze et al. (1) that NRSIs should be viewed as
complementary. Our concerns are particularly relevant for
ART, where regulation is limited, commercial conflicts of
interest are common, and interventions are regularly
adopted before they are evaluated using RCTs. To be clear,
we do not see these as points of disagreement with
Schwarze et al. (1), but rather as additional points for
consideration.

2 25 54

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Aug 11

Thanks Andy. Could you email [email protected] and she will generate an invitation link for you?

2

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Aug 11

How to demonstrate ‘promise of the intervention’ ahead of an RCT of the intervention? If you’d like to participate in the final round of the Promise Delphi, even if you didn’t do Round 1, then get in touch!

1 6 5

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Aug 8

Thanks Ian. So you’re saying that me repeatedly deleting and reuploading probably hasn’t helped the issue? 🙂

1 2

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · Aug 8

Any OSF-heads have suggestions here? I noticed a typo in a public OSF document I had uploaded. So I deleted and uploaded the corrected version. But the new version (a Word document, same as the previous doc) won't display - 'Unexpected server response'. Any ideas?

1 1