Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials

View ORCID ProfileJohn P.A. Ioannidis
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.11.22269097
John P.A. Ioannidis
Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for John P.A. Ioannidis
  • For correspondence: jioannid@stanford.edu
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Importance COVID-19 has resulted in massive production, publication and wide dissemination of clinical studies trying to identify effective treatments. However, several widely touted treatments failed to show effectiveness in large well-done randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Objective To evaluate for COVID-19 treatments that showed no benefits in subsequent large RCTs how many of their most-cited clinical studies had declared favorable results for these interventions.

Methods Scopus (last update December 23, 2021) identified articles on lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxycholoroquine/azithromycin, remdesivir, convalescent plasma, colchicine or interferon (index interventions) that represented clinical trials and that had received >150 citations. Their conclusions were assessed and correlated with study design features. The ten most recent citations for the most-cited article on each index intervention were examined on whether they were critical to the highly-cited study. Altmetric scores were also obtained.

Findings 40 articles of clinical studies on these index interventions had received >150 citations (7 exceeded 1,000 citations). 20/40 (50%) had favorable conclusions and 4 were equivocal. Highly-cited articles with favorable conclusions were rarely RCTs while those without favorable conclusions were mostly RCTs (3/20 vs 15/20, p=0.0003). Only 1 RCT with favorable conclusions had sample size >160. Citation counts correlated strongly with Altmetric scores, in particular news items. Only 9 (15%) of 60 recent citations to the most highly-cited studies with favorable or equivocal conclusions were critical to the highly-cited study.

Conclusion Many clinical studies with favorable conclusions for largely ineffective COVID-19 treatments are uncritically heavily cited and disseminated. Early observational studies and small randomized trials may cause spurious claims of effectiveness that get perpetuated.

Competing Interest Statement

The authors have declared no competing interest.

Funding Statement

This study did not receive any funding

Author Declarations

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Data Availability

All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted January 14, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials
John P.A. Ioannidis
medRxiv 2022.01.11.22269097; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.11.22269097
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
High-cited favorable studies for COVID-19 treatments ineffective in large trials
John P.A. Ioannidis
medRxiv 2022.01.11.22269097; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.01.11.22269097

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Epidemiology
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (161)
  • Allergy and Immunology (414)
  • Anesthesia (90)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (858)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (159)
  • Dermatology (97)
  • Emergency Medicine (248)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (394)
  • Epidemiology (8561)
  • Forensic Medicine (4)
  • Gastroenterology (383)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (1749)
  • Geriatric Medicine (167)
  • Health Economics (372)
  • Health Informatics (1242)
  • Health Policy (620)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (467)
  • Hematology (196)
  • HIV/AIDS (372)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (10299)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (553)
  • Medical Education (192)
  • Medical Ethics (51)
  • Nephrology (211)
  • Neurology (1677)
  • Nursing (97)
  • Nutrition (251)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (326)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (450)
  • Oncology (928)
  • Ophthalmology (263)
  • Orthopedics (102)
  • Otolaryngology (172)
  • Pain Medicine (113)
  • Palliative Medicine (40)
  • Pathology (253)
  • Pediatrics (534)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (252)
  • Primary Care Research (208)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (1768)
  • Public and Global Health (3837)
  • Radiology and Imaging (623)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (320)
  • Respiratory Medicine (520)
  • Rheumatology (208)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (167)
  • Sports Medicine (158)
  • Surgery (190)
  • Toxicology (36)
  • Transplantation (101)
  • Urology (76)