- NEWS
Giant study finds untrustworthy trials pollute gold-standard medical reviews
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Nature 637, 256-257 (2025)
doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-04206-3
References
Wilkinson, J. et al. Preprint at medRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.11.25.24316905 (2024).
Carlisle, J. B. Anaesthesia 76, 472–479 (2021).
Nielsen, J., Flanagan, M., Gurrin, L. C., Thornton, J. & Mol, B. W. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jogoh.2024.102794 (2024).
Weeks, J., Cuthbert, A. & Alfirevic, Z. Cochrane Evid. Synth. Methods 1, e12037 (2023).
Berrio, J. P. & Kalliokoski, O. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.13.580196 (2024).
Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed?
How papers with doctored images can affect scientific reviews
Science’s fake-paper problem: high-profile effort will tackle paper mills
‘Papermill alarm’ software flags potentially fake papers
Can AI review the scientific literature — and figure out what it all means?
Scientists are building giant ‘evidence banks’ to create policies that actually work