Thank you for this post. I have been making the same point in lectures specifically dealing with postoperative delirum research, where there has been a suspicious pattern in data. Studies on the effect of intraoperative BIS (pEEG) monitoring has shown a tendency to be favourable only in China, or more specifically only when the patients were randomized in China. I felt a bit uncomfortable pointing this out, but was confirmed recently in this paper - a meta-regression, finding highly skewed data on delirium prevention both by pEEG and Dexmedetomidine, when the data was from China. I would say that this is the best example of a smoking gun as of yet. The problem is that our current concept of meta analysis is simply not valid, if it includes fraudulent data which propably means all of them. https://www.bjanaesthesia.org.uk/article/S0007-0912(24)00349-0/fulltext
There are various forensic techniques that could be done. It would be very labor intensive to evaluate every article which is why I doubt the journals are doing it. I wasn’t aware of the BIS findings you describe - thanks for writing.
I agree with the article and have been suspicious regarding studies out of China for a long time. My only objection to your analysis is that this is not a "cultural norm" of the Chinese people as evidence by the fact that most Chinese scientists and physicians are not accepting this (whether in Taiwan, other SE Asian countries, or those locally who want to maintain integrity). It is, however, the norm of the communist and Marxist principles regardless of the field or country overtaken by this ideology.
Hi John. I'm grateful that you wrote. I felt very uncomfortable writing this post, but I felt like I could not continue to review these articles without addressing the issue, which I tried my best to do responsibly.
You raise an important point. The word "norm" suggests a wider acceptance and approval than it's fair to imply here. (Especially by a writer who's never been there!) China is obviously a massive and massively complex place whose diversity of opinion and values can't be painted with a single brush and shouldn't be oversimplified.
I removed the word "norm" to avoid suggesting any consensus of opinion in China regarding optimal research conduct.
I considered making mention of potential root causes of cultural factors (political systems of control, etc.) but it's beyond the scope of this publication not to mention my knowledge base. Thanks again for writing. -Matt
Thank you for this post. I have been making the same point in lectures specifically dealing with postoperative delirum research, where there has been a suspicious pattern in data. Studies on the effect of intraoperative BIS (pEEG) monitoring has shown a tendency to be favourable only in China, or more specifically only when the patients were randomized in China. I felt a bit uncomfortable pointing this out, but was confirmed recently in this paper - a meta-regression, finding highly skewed data on delirium prevention both by pEEG and Dexmedetomidine, when the data was from China. I would say that this is the best example of a smoking gun as of yet. The problem is that our current concept of meta analysis is simply not valid, if it includes fraudulent data which propably means all of them. https://www.bjanaesthesia.org.uk/article/S0007-0912(24)00349-0/fulltext
There are various forensic techniques that could be done. It would be very labor intensive to evaluate every article which is why I doubt the journals are doing it. I wasn’t aware of the BIS findings you describe - thanks for writing.
I agree with the article and have been suspicious regarding studies out of China for a long time. My only objection to your analysis is that this is not a "cultural norm" of the Chinese people as evidence by the fact that most Chinese scientists and physicians are not accepting this (whether in Taiwan, other SE Asian countries, or those locally who want to maintain integrity). It is, however, the norm of the communist and Marxist principles regardless of the field or country overtaken by this ideology.
Hi John. I'm grateful that you wrote. I felt very uncomfortable writing this post, but I felt like I could not continue to review these articles without addressing the issue, which I tried my best to do responsibly.
You raise an important point. The word "norm" suggests a wider acceptance and approval than it's fair to imply here. (Especially by a writer who's never been there!) China is obviously a massive and massively complex place whose diversity of opinion and values can't be painted with a single brush and shouldn't be oversimplified.
I removed the word "norm" to avoid suggesting any consensus of opinion in China regarding optimal research conduct.
I considered making mention of potential root causes of cultural factors (political systems of control, etc.) but it's beyond the scope of this publication not to mention my knowledge base. Thanks again for writing. -Matt
Wow. Good article and great points. Also, kudo's to you both for your comments and dialogue. Sincere. Professional.
Thank you for saying so.