BMJ  2005;331:267-270 (30 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7511.267

Paper

Are these data real? Statistical methods for the detection of data fabrication in clinical trials

Sanaa Al-Marzouki, research student1, Stephen Evans, professor of pharmacoepidemiology, Medical Statistics Unit1, Tom Marshall, senior lecturer in medical statistics1, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology and public heath1

1 Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT

Correspondence to: S Evans stephen.evans{at}Lshtm.ac.uk

Objectives To test the application of statistical methods to detect data fabrication in a clinical trial.

Setting Data from two clinical trials: a trial of a dietary intervention for cardiovascular disease and a trial of a drug intervention for the same problem.

Outcome measures Baseline comparisons of means and variances of cardiovascular risk factors; digit preference overall and its pattern by group.

Results In the dietary intervention trial, variances for 16 of the 22 variables available at baseline were significally different, and 10 significant differences were seen in means for these variables. Some of these P values were extraordinarily small. Distributions of the final recorded digit were significantly different between the intervention and the control group at baseline for 14/22 variables in the dietary trial. In the drug trial, only five variables were available, and no significant differences between the groups for baseline values in means or variances or digit preference were seen.

Conclusions Several statistical features of the data from the dietary trial are so strongly suggestive of data fabrication that no other explanation is likely.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

How to detect data fabrication
BMJ 2005 331: 0. [Full Text]

Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct
Jane Smith and Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2005 331: 245-246. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth
Caroline White
BMJ 2005 331: 281-288. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Shamliyan, T. A., MacDonald, R., Shaukat, A., Taylor, B. C., Yuan, J.-M., Johnson, J. R., Tacklind, J., Rutks, I., Kane, R. L., Wilt, T. J. (2009). Antiviral Therapy for Adults With Chronic Hepatitis B: A Systematic Review for a National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference. ANN INTERN MED 150: 111-124 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Bopp, M., Faeh, D. (2008). Who gives me five?. BMJ 337: a2950-a2950 [Full text]  
  • Kavvoura, F. K., McQueen, M. B., Khoury, M. J., Tanzi, R. E., Bertram, L., Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Evaluation of the Potential Excess of Statistically Significant Findings in Published Genetic Association Studies: Application to Alzheimer's Disease. Am J Epidemiol 168: 855-865 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Shamliyan, T. A., Kane, R. L., Wyman, J., Wilt, T. J. (2008). Systematic Review: Randomized, Controlled Trials of Nonsurgical Treatments for Urinary Incontinence in Women. ANN INTERN MED 148: 459-473 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Baigent, C., Harrell, F. E, Buyse, M., Emberson, J. R, Altman, D. G (2008). Ensuring trial validity by data quality assurance and diversification of monitoring methods. Clin Trials 5: 49-55 [Abstract]  
  • Ioannidis, J. P., Trikalinos, T. A (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clin Trials 4: 245-253 [Abstract]  
  • Coultas, D. (2007). Ethical Considerations in the Interpretation and Communication of Clinical Trial Results. Proc Am Thorac Soc 4: 194-199 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Dahlquist, G. (2006). Ethics in research: Why and how?. Scand J Public Health 34: 449-452  
  • Locker, T E, Mason, S M (2006). Are these emergency department performance data real?. Emerg. Med. J. 23: 558-559 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Newman, A, Jones, R (2006). Authorship of research papers: ethical and professional issues for short-term researchers.. J. Med. Ethics 32: 420-423 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Smith, J., Godlee, F. (2005). Investigating allegations of scientific misconduct. BMJ 331: 245-246 [Full text]  
  • White, C. (2005). Suspected research fraud: difficulties of getting at the truth. BMJ 331: 281-288 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Detecting fraudulent or tampered data
John P Coffey
bmj.com, 1 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Checking data and assumptions
R Allan Reese
bmj.com, 1 Aug 2005 [Full text]
What if a computer were used?
Neville W Goodman
bmj.com, 4 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Trial Data
Mark R Daley, et al.
bmj.com, 4 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Single Blind is Double Blind
John M. Williams
bmj.com, 5 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Researcher as a source of uncontrollable bias
Sviatoslav L. Plavinski
bmj.com, 5 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Response on Benford's Law
Stephen J Evans
bmj.com, 7 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Re: Response on Benford's Law
Dr Richard J C Brown
bmj.com, 8 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Re: Single Blind is Double Blind
Nuri Schwarz
bmj.com, 9 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Benford's Law [very large data set number-analysis] not needed in approaches that work
Eddie Vos
bmj.com, 9 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Single Blind is Double Blind, Revisited
John M. Williams
bmj.com, 11 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Wider application of these methods
Irene M Stratton, et al.
bmj.com, 12 Aug 2005 [Full text]
What is a single blind trial?
Douglas G Altman
bmj.com, 12 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Letter to the British Medical Journal (BMJ)
David Wolfson, et al.
bmj.com, 24 Aug 2005 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ