The role of biostatistics in the prevention, detection and treatment of fraud in clinical trials.

Recent cases of fraud in clinical trials have attracted considerable media attention, but relatively little reaction from the biostatistical community. In this paper we argue that biostatisticians should be involved in preventing fraud (as well as unintentional errors), detecting it, and quantifying its impact on the outcome of clinical trials. We use the term 'fraud' specifically to refer to data fabrication (making up data values) and falsification (changing data values). Reported cases of such fraud involve cheating on inclusion criteria so that ineligible patients can enter the trial, and fabricating data so that no requested data are missing. Such types of fraud are partially preventable through a simplification of the eligibility criteria and through a reduction in the amount of data requested. These two measures are feasible and desirable in a surprisingly large number of clinical trials, and neither of them in any way jeopardizes the validity of the trial results. With regards to detection of fraud, a brute force approach has traditionally been used, whereby the participating centres undergo extensive monitoring involving up to 100 per cent verification of their case records. The cost-effectiveness of this approach seems highly debatable, since one could implement quality control through random sampling schemes, as is done in fields other than clinical medicine. Moreover, there are statistical techniques available (but insufficiently used) to detect 'strange' patterns in the data including, but no limited to, techniques for studying outliers, inliers, overdispersion, underdispersion and correlations or lack thereof. These techniques all rest upon the premise that it is quite difficult to invent plausible data, particularly highly dimensional multivariate data. The multicentric nature of clinical trials also offers an opportunity to check the plausibility of the data submitted by one centre by comparing them with the data from all other centres. Finally, with fraud detected, it is essential to quantify its likely impact upon the outcome of the clinical trial. Many instances of fraud in clinical trials, although morally reprehensible, have a negligible impact on the trial's scientific conclusions.

[1]  Rory A. Fisher,et al.  Has Mendel's work been rediscovered? , 1936 .

[2]  Charles Babbage,et al.  Reflections on the Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes , 1970 .

[3]  R. A. Raimi.  The First Digit Problem , 1976 .

[4]  D D Dorfman,et al.  The Cyril Burt Question: New Findings , 1978, Science.

[5]  J. Whitehouse.  Cancer: Assessment and Monitoring , 1980 .

[6]  C. Meinert,et al.  On the detection of outlier clinics in medical and surgical trials: II. Theoretical considerations. , 1981, Controlled clinical trials.

[7]  D. A. Preece,et al.  Distributions of Final Digits in Data , 1981 .

[8]  D. Altman.  Statistics and ethics in medical research. VIII-Improving the quality of statistics in medical journals. , 1981, British medical journal.

[9]  R. Knox.  The Harvard fraud case: where does the problem lie? , 1983, JAMA.

[10]  R Peto,et al.  Why do we need some large, simple randomized trials? , 1984, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  N. Rescher.  The limits of science , 1999 .

[12]  M. Miers.  Current NIH perspectives on misconduct in science. , 1985, The American psychologist.

[13]  E. Huth.  Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[14]  F. Weiling.  What about R.A. Fisher's statement of the "too good" data of J.G. Mendel's Pisum paper? , 1986, The Journal of heredity.

[15]  J C Bailar,et al.  Science, statistics, and deception. , 1986, Annals of internal medicine.

[16]  John Allen Paulos,et al.  Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and Its Consequences , 1988 .

[17]  Research ethics, due process, and common sense. , 1988, JAMA.

[18]  B. Mishkin.  Responding to scientific misconduct. Due process and prevention. , 1988, JAMA.

[19]  S Lock,et al.  Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain? , 1988, BMJ.

[20]  P. Woolf.  Science needs vigilance not vigilantes. , 1988, JAMA.

[21]  R. Petersdorf.  A matter of integrity , 1989, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[22]  M. Shapiro,et al.  The role of data audits in detecting scientific misconduct. Results of the FDA program. , 1989, JAMA.

[23]  T. Pullar,et al.  Time to stop counting the tablets? , 1989, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[24]  Buyse Me.  Potential and pitfalls of randomized clinical trials in cancer research. , 1989 .

[25]  E van der Schueren,et al.  Quality control of validity of data collected in clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Data Management (SGDM). , 1989, European journal of cancer & clinical oncology.

[26]  I Chalmers,et al.  Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. , 1990, JAMA.

[27]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Selection of patients for randomized controlled trials: implications of wide or narrow eligibility criteria. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[28]  Buyse Me.  The case of loose inclusion criteria in clinical trials. , 1990 .

[29]  K. Bailey,et al.  Detecting fabrication of data in a multicenter collaborative animal study. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[30]  J. Neaton,et al.  A case of data alteration in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT). The MRFIT Research Group. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[31]  Science, Ideology, and the Media: Cyril Burt Scandal , 1991 .

[32]  R. P. Schwarz.  Maintaining integrity and credibility in industry-sponsored clinical research. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[33]  Scientific misconduct in medical research. , 1992 .

[34]  M. Hersen,et al.  Research fraud in the behavioral and biomedical sciences , 1992 .

[35]  M. Buyse.  Regulatory versus Public Health Requirements in Clinical Trials , 1993 .

[36]  T R Fleming.  Data monitoring committees and capturing relevant information of high quality. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[37]  B. Zee,et al.  Assessing the reliability of two toxicity scales: implications for interpreting toxicity data. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[38]  J D Dingell,et al.  Shattuck Lecture--misconduct in medical research. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[39]  N. Vogelzang,et al.  A successful system of scientific data audits for clinical trials. A report from the Cancer and Leukemia Group B. , 1993, JAMA.

[40]  R. Dresser.  Defining scientific misconduct. The relevance of mental state. , 1993, JAMA.

[41]  Breast cancer. How not to publicize a misconduct finding. , 1994, Science.

[42]  R. Nowak.  Problems in clinical trials go far beyond misconduct. , 1994, Science.

[43]  J. Cohen.  Clinical trial monitoring: hit or miss? , 1994, Science.

[44]  C. Redmond,et al.  Fraud in breast-cancer trials. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[45]  S. Broder.  Fraud in breast-cancer trials. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[46]  Fraud in breast-cancer trials. , 1994 .

[47]  Scientific misconduct. NIH tightens clinical trials monitoring. , 1994, Science.

[48]  J. Kassirer,et al.  Setting the record straight in the breast-cancer trials. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[49]  B. Alberts,et al.  Scientists and the integrity of research. , 1994, Science.

[50]  Handling scientific fraud , 1995, BMJ.

[51]  Fraudulent and redundant publication. , 1995, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[52]  D. Evered,et al.  Misconduct in medical research , 1995, The Lancet.

[53]  W. James.  Fraud and hoaxes in science , 1995, Nature.

[54]  V Rippere.  Clinical fraud is common , 1995, BMJ.

[55]  James E. Mosimann,et al.  Data fabrication: Can people generate random digits? , 1995 .

[56]  T. Hill.  The Significant-Digit Phenomenon , 1995 .

[57]  C. Redmond,et al.  Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. , 1995, New England Journal of Medicine.

[58]  M. Christian,et al.  The National Cancer Institute audit of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Protocol B-06. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[59]  L. Stewart,et al.  Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[60]  Serious allegations are hard to believe , 1995, BMJ.

[61]  I Chalmers,et al.  Prospective registration of health care research would help , 1995, BMJ.

[62]  T. Hill.  A Statistical Derivation of the Significant-Digit Law , 1995 .

[63]  Top cancer-related news stories focus on fraud, breast cancer, and the hope of early detection. , 1995, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[64]  How Many Light Bulbs Does it Take to Generate a Data Set , 1996 .

[65]  S Lock,et al.  Fraud and Misconduct in Medical Research , 1996, The Medico-legal journal.

[66]  S L George,et al.  Reducing patient eligibility criteria in cancer clinical trials. , 1996, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[67]  James E. Mosimann,et al.  Uniform occurrence of digits for folded and mixture distributions on finite intervals , 1996 .

[68]  Detection of Negligence, Fraud, and other Bad Faith Efforts during Field Auditing of Clinical Trial Sites , 1996 .

[69]  GMC takes racial discrimination seriously , 1997 .

[70]  Stephen L. George,et al.  Perspectives on Scientific Misconduct and Fraud in Clinical Trials , 1997 .

[71]  D. Parrish.  Improving the scientific misconduct hearing process. , 1997, JAMA.

[72]  D. Sackett,et al.  The trials of Dr. Bernard Fisher: a European perspective on an American episode. , 1997, Controlled clinical trials.

[73]  Ethics: Sending Out the Message , 1997, Science.

[74]  Z. Kmietowicz.  UK exempts motor racing from advertising ban , 1997, BMJ.

[75]  E Marshall,et al.  Publishing sensitive data: who calls the shots? Secretiveness found widespread in life sciences. , 1997, Science.

[76]  S L George,et al.  Guidelines for quality assurance in multicenter trials: a position paper. , 1998, Controlled clinical trials.

[77]  Theodore P. Hill.  The First Digit Phenomenon , 1998 .

[78]  M. Farthing.  Coping with fraud , 1998, The Lancet.

[79]  M. Buyse,et al.  Clinical Research after Drug Approval: What is Needed and What is Not , 1999 .