Trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials evaluating induction of labour: a meta-epidemiological study

As there is no active surveillance on the data integrity and research trustworthiness of randomised controlled trials (RCT) at the moment, the validity of some RCT findings could be a concern. Similarly, attention must be given to obstetrics and gynaecology RCTs. Compromised RCTs could further harm the scientific validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that include these trials. Simply including all summary data without questioning their validity in aggregate data systematic reviews including the Cochrane database of systematic reviews imposes a potential threat to the validity of these systematic reviews. Thereby, patients could be harmed by the evidence generated through compromised research. The use of individual participant data (IPD) in meta-analyses could be a solution, to the problem of including all summary data without questioning their validity in aggregate data systematic reviews. Data sharing as IPD offers an opportunity to assess data integrity and the overall trustworthiness of RCTs. We hypothesize that sharing of data could possibly provide insight into research trustworthiness. As we have established a large collection of RCTs when performing a series of IPD meta-analysis in terms of induction of labour, we plan to perform a meta-epidemiological study that compares the research trustworthiness issues between RCTs that shared IPD versus those that did not share data.