Editors and reviewers often cannot spot fake or fatally flawed clinical trials using only summary tables. Audits that required anonymized individual participant data (IPD) found roughly a quarter of trials were untrustworthy, versus ~1% detected from summaries. Making IPD submission and audit a precondition for publishing randomized trials would expose errors and fraud before they enter the literature.
— This would change journal standards and strengthen the evidence base behind clinical guidelines, reimbursement, and public health policy.
Kristen French
2026.01.16
72% relevant
The article points to new molecular targets that will spur clinical trials of non‑hallucinogenic psychedelics; this amplifies the existing idea that high‑stakes clinical claims need robust preregistered trials and individual‑participant data (IPD) provision so regulators and clinicians can evaluate safety (psychosis risk) and long‑term efficacy before widescale adoption.
msmash
2026.01.12
86% relevant
This report describes a small clinical pilot at Moorfields with dramatic patient outcomes; scaling trust in such claims depends on access to underlying trial data and individual‑participant data (IPD) so independent reviewers can verify results and safety profiles before broad adoption.
Santi Ruiz
2026.01.09
66% relevant
Both pieces diagnose institutional drivers that degrade biomedical evidence and propose administrative fixes. Lauer highlights how current funding incentives, perverse review cycles and soft‑money salaries harm research quality and reproducibility; the existing idea argues for mandatory individual participant data (IPD) submission to detect fraud and raise trial reliability — both are practical governance levers to improve the biomedical evidence base funded by NIH.
2023.07.18
100% relevant
John Carlisle’s 2017–2020 audit of 500+ RCT submissions to Anaesthesia: 26% 'zombie' trials detected when IPD were available; ~1% detected without IPD.