iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Elisabeth Bik @elisabethbik.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Hahaha at least they changed the fonts.

031

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Margarita Nadenka @margaritanadenka.bsky.social · 10/10/2026

Great post! Congrats Florian 🙌

011

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

It was rated as unclear risk of bias. The sensitivity analysis based on risk of bias was perform between low/unclear versus high risk of bias. It remained undetected here...

010

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

The Cohrane meta-analysis did not include nortriptyline and thus the problematic loop was not included.

010

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Hey @jama.com, your webpage "Research, Methods, Statistics" is an incredibly useful resource. One question: why illustrate it with a photo of Excel that looks like the worst copy-and-paste job you’d expect to find in a fraudulent study? The irony is perfect. 😜 jamanetwork.com/collections/...

351

Reposted by Florian Naudet

rboussageon.bsky.social @rboussageon.bsky.social · 06/10/2026

Yes, and David Taylor says that all of this comes down to interpretation... and therefore to authority. It's time for you to come up with REB, a method of interpretation!

021

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

See this excellent blog by @ianhussey.mmmdata.io for background on implausible effect sizes, including the reference to the 🍫 vs. 💩 study. We thought of including this comparison in the paper but did not, in order to avoid being all too provocative and rejected

131

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 03/10/2026

🍫 or 💩? About the effect size reported in a trial that shaped the estimated effect of fluoxetine in meta-analyses of pediatric depression, my stellar co-author @ploederl.bsky.social says: “It’s the kind of effect size you only get if you ask people whether they prefer chocolate or faeces.” 👇👇👇

nature.com

Prozac use for childhood depression skewed by single flawed medical trial

One small study in Iran swayed meta-analyses in favour of antidepressant use in children, researchers say.

1158

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Thanks, Erick!

021

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

🔥 OUR STUDY FEATURED IN NATURE NEWS What if one flawed zombie trial 🧟 helped shape the evidence for treating depression in children? Quote : "Elia Abi-Jaoude, [...] calls the paper a “slam-dunk study”. “I hope it will get wide exposure” he says."

52913

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Richard Van Noorden @richvn.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

@floriannaudet.bsky.social, @ploederl.bsky.social and others found the change comes down to whether the meta-analyses happend to include a particular clinical trial on 40 children in Iran from 2006. This one trial found an unfeasibly huge advantage for Prozac over another antidepressant.

172

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Richard Van Noorden @richvn.bsky.social · 02/10/2026

Scientists have repeatedly warned that flawed studies are affecting the results of systematic reviews in medicine and other fields, but it’s rare to find such a clear example, says @floriannaudet.bsky.social . Read more here: www.nature.com/articles/d41...

nature.com

Prozac use for childhood depression skewed by single flawed medical trial

One small study in Iran swayed meta-analyses in favour of antidepressant use in children, researchers say.

1214

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Ian Hussey @ianhussey.mmmdata.io · 25/09/2026

"Systematic reviews are only as credible as the studies they include" INSPECT-SR was published yesterday, giving concrete guidance on how to exclude untrustworthy studies. Cochrane's statement: www.cochrane.org/about-us/new... Article: www.cochrane.org/about-us/new... Guidance: inspect-sr.com

cochrane.org

New tool helps researchers spot problematic trials before they distort evidence | Cochrane

26131

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Peer Review Congress #PRC11 Coming 2029! @peerreviewcongress.bsky.social · 21/09/2026

High-confidence MAs use prospectively reg’d protocols, independent reviewers, high-qual RCTs, w enough events for precise meaningful estimates w consistent effects + heterogeneity that's low or clinically/statistically explicable www.thelancet.com/jo... Harlan M. Krumholz The Lancet

022

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 20/09/2026

Just came across this meta-analysis on antidepressants to treat anxiety in elderly people. Have a look at the forest plot. Yes, the effects of some SSRI trials are implausibly large. Study: doi.org/10.1016/s221... Here an overview of the errors I detected: pubpeer.com/publications...

2112

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

2. Study says it followed the Helsinki Declaration, but it was registered retrospectively. The Helsinki Declaration requires prospective registration.

121

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

3. "a recent large-scale meta-analysis (67 RCTs, n= 11,553) concluded that intravenous administration, the route used in our study, is the most effective for improving depressive symptoms and preventing postoperative depression, though it may carry a higher risk of dizziness [7]" Ref #7: mice study!

221

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

4. Detected in about 30Minutes. I assume that many more oddities will occur when taking a closer look. @floriannaudet.bsky.social @ianhussey.mmmdata.io

121

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

5. This is the p-value for the comparison of depression between esketamine and placebo at t3: 0.0000000000000000008 SMD = 3.77 (95% CI 2.88 to 4.67)

111

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Martin Plöderl @ploederl.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

6. "The trial protocol was prospectively registered with the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry" versus "An additional limitation of this study is the retrospective trial registration.when in fact it was done retrospectively"

142

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Jack Wilkinson @jdwilko.bsky.social · 03/09/2026

Research is so much more difficult when you care about research integrity. This is why it will never be a priority for most researchers. Researchers benefit from lax standards.

0113

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 27/08/2026

Peer review of the day: Is it possible that researchers pooled the baseline characteristics of clinical trials, thinking they were actually analyzing the efficacy of a treatment. and, on top of that, pooled the primary publication of a trial together with its secondary publications? Answer: YES

130

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

After unblinding, outcome data for nine patients were modified in a way that changed the result to statistical significance. These altered findings were subsequently published and submitted to regulators, and the ADVOCATE publication was retracted on June 29, 2026.

000

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

According to the FDA, the original blinded analysis failed to demonstrate a statistically significant benefit, with a two-sided p value of 0.1025.

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

While post-marketing reports of potentially serious liver toxicity contributed to these decisions, the case is particularly striking because the pivotal phase III ADVOCATE trial, on which the drug's approval relied, was found to contain falsified data.

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

In April 2026, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed withdrawing avacopan from the US market, followed in June by a similar proposal from the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

A new editorial (in French) published in La Revue de Médecine Interne by Alexandre Terré, Marie-France Mamzer and I, examines the avacopan (Tavneos®) case and the serious questions it raises about the integrity and oversight of clinical research. authors.elsevier.com/c/1nfgAubUqz...

132

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 24/08/2026

🚨 New preprint on nepotistic editors 🚨 How frequently do journal editors publish research articles in the journals they oversee? Our new preprint led by the great Cedric Lemarchand provides some interesting data from biomedical research. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.6...

medrxiv.org

Editors and research articles: a retrospective study of self-publication in biomedical research

Objective In 2021, a large-scale survey highlighted that in a subset of biomedical journals, a few authors –often serving on the editorial board– published disproportionately and experienced shorter a...

001

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 15/08/2026

Non pas d idée. Pour Fresh, j’ai juste aidé au brainstorming. Je ne suis pas directement impliqué. Mais tu peux leur demander, ils te diront. Ils savent sûrement.

010

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 13/08/2026

New paper published in JCE: « The Erosion of Proof in Paradigm Transitions: The Rise of Narrative Rationality in Health Technology Assessment. » Lega JC, Gougeon A, Michal C, Provencher S, Naudet F, Falissard B, Chevrette C, Boussageon R jclinepi.com/retrieve/pii...

jclinepi.com

000

Reposted by Florian Naudet

Peer Review Congress #PRC11 Coming 2029! @peerreviewcongress.bsky.social · 12/08/2026

OSF is Changing! Starting Nov 16, 2026, no new projects or child components of existing projects can be created on OSF After Feb 19, 2027, all public and private OSF projects will become read-only Learn more at www.cos.io/osf-changes @cos.io @briannosek.bsky.social

cos.io

OSF Changes | Center for Open Science

We are preparing substantial changes to OSF that will reduce its functionality, focus OSF on its unique strengths, and move toward an integrated model with complementary services. As part of that shif...

021

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Greater clarity and standardisation, particularly among public sponsors, could improve transparency and facilitate responsible data reuse, while remaining compatible with GDPR requirements.

000

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Private sponsors tend to provide more detailed and operationally explicit documentation, whereas public sponsors often articulate high-level commitments without trial-specific guidance.

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Conclusion: Clinical trial data sharing governance in the EU shows a marked sectoral imbalance among the top sponsors.

110

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Across sectors, General Data Protection Regulation compliance, data protection, and legal safeguards were emphasised, while operational aspects such as dataset readiness, review criteria, and downstream responsibilities varied widely. Overall response rate to sponsor verification was 37.5%.

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Public sponsors more frequently referenced data management and sharing plans, but these were heterogeneous in scope and often embedded within broader institutional governance documents rather than tailored to clinical trials.

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Results: Among 40 sponsors, private sponsors were substantially more likely than public sponsors to make trial-specific data sharing policies and data use agreements publicly accessible, often via established data sharing platforms.

100

Florian Naudet @floriannaudet.bsky.social · 11/08/2026

Quantitative data were summarised descriptively, and a non-interpretive descriptive content analysis was conducted to characterise recurring policy elements and areas of heterogeneity.

100