• Manon Malia Sydney Levayer, Gem Rui Ping Chew, Kyle Alexander Sheldrick, and Ashish Dhar Diwan.
• School of Biomedical Engineering, The University of Sydney, Darlington, Australia.
• Eur Spine J. 2023 Sep 1; 32 (9): 300930143009-3014.

BackgroundRecent signs of fraudulent behaviour in spine RCTs have queried the integrity of trials in the field. RCTs are particularly important due to the weight they are accorded in guiding treatment decisions, and thus, ensuring RCTs' reliability is crucial. This study investigates the presence of non-random baseline frequency data in purported RCTs published in spine journals.MethodsA PubMed search was performed to obtain all RCTs published in four spine journals (Spine, The Spine Journal, the Journal of Neurosurgery Spine, and European Spine Journal) between Jan-2016 and Dec-2020. Baseline frequency data were extracted, and variable-wise p values were calculated using the Pearson Chi-squared test. These p values were combined for each study into study-wise p values using the Stouffer method. Studies with p values below 0.01 and 0.05 and those above 0.95 and 0.99 were reviewed. Results were compared to Carlisle's 2017 survey of anaesthesia and critical care medicine RCTs.ResultsOne hundred sixty-seven of the 228 studies identified were included. Study-wise p values were largely consistent with expected genuine randomized experiments. Slightly more study-wise p values above 0.99 were observed than expected, but a number of these had good explanations to account for that excess. The distribution of observed study-wise p values was more closely matched to the expected distribution than those in a similar survey of the anaesthesia and critical care medicine literature.ConclusionThe data surveyed do not show evidence of systemic fraudulent behaviour. Spine RCTs in major spine journals were found to be consistent with genuine random allocation and experimentally derived data.© 2023. The Author(s).

14 keywords...

hide…