WilliamsACCFisherEHearnL, et al.Psychological therapies for the management of chronic pain (excluding headache) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2020; 8: CD007407. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007407.pub4.
2.
O’ConnellNEMooreRAStewartG, et al.Investigating the veracity of a sample of divergent published trial data in spinal pain. Pain2023; 164: 72–83.
3.
WilliamsACCHearnLMooreRA, et al.Effective quality control in the medical literature: investigation and retraction vs inaction. J Clin Epidemiol2023; 157: 156–157in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.02.022.
4.
O’ConnellNEMooreRAStewartG, et al.Trials we cannot trust: investigating their impact on systematic reviews and clinical guidelines in spinal pain. Pain2023in press.
5.
FerraroMCMooreRAWilliamsACC, et al.Characteristics of retracted publications related to pain research: a systematic review. Pain2023in press.
6.
AvenellAStewartFGreyA, et al.An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature. BMJ Open2019; 9: e031909. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031909.
7.
FanelliDWongJMoherD. What difference might retractions make? an estimate of the potential epistemic cost of retractions on meta-analyses. Account Res2022; 29(7): 442–449. DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2021.1947810.
8.
TugwellPKnottnerusJA. How does one detect scientific fraud—but avoid false accusations. J Clin Epidemiol2017; 87: 1–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.08.013.
9.
BauerGR. Biased outcome reporting guidelines for underwhelming studies (BOGUS) statement and checklist. BMJ2021; 375: Article e067350, DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-067350.
10.
MooreAFisherEEcclestonC. Flawed, futile, and fabricated—features that limit confidence in clinical research in pain and anaesthesia: a narrative review. Br J Anaesth2023; 130, 287, 295, DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.09.030
