Caveat emptor: The combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting

Tianjing Li, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Nicole Fusco, Hwanhee Hong, Kay Dickersin

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

6 Scopus citations


Clinical trials and systematic reviews of clinical trials inform healthcare decisions. There is growing concern, however, about results from clinical trials that cannot be reproduced. Reasons for nonreproducibility include that outcomes are defined in multiple ways, results can be obtained using multiple methods of analysis, and trial findings are reported in multiple sources ("multiplicity"). Multiplicity combined with selective reporting can influence dissemination of trial findings and decision-making. In particular, users of evidence might be misled by exposure to selected sources and overly optimistic representations of intervention effects. In this commentary, drawing from our experience in the Multiple Data Sources in Systematic Reviews (MUDS) study and evidence from previous research, we offer practical recommendations to enhance the reproducibility of clinical trials and systematic reviews.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number497
Issue number1
StatePublished - Sep 17 2018


  • Multiplicity
  • Reproducibility
  • Selective reporting

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Pharmacology (medical)


Dive into the research topics of 'Caveat emptor: The combined effects of multiplicity and selective reporting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this