The INSPECT-SR checklist for systematic reviewers assessing trustworthiness of included studies
19.2 1. Inspecting post-publication notices
1.1. Does the study have an associated retraction?
1.2. Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?
1.3. Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern (associated retractions, expressions of concern, relevant post-publication notices)?
19.3 2. Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency
2.1. Are there concerns relating to ethical approval?
2.2. Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?
2.3. Are there important inconsistencies between the publication and the registration documents?
2.4. Is the recruitment of participants implausible?
2.5. Are the reported methods implausible considering the reported resources?
19.4 3. Inspecting text and publication details
3.1. Are there concerns relating to duplicated content, such as text or tables, or text that is incompatible with the study?
3.2. Is there evidence of manipulation or duplication of figures?
19.5 4. Inspecting results in the study
4.1. Are there any unexplained discrepancies between reported data and participant eligibility criteria?
4.2. Are numbers of participants allocated to each group implausible given the allocation method?
4.3. Are any baseline data implausible?
4.4. Are there any discrepancies between results reported in figures, tables, and text?
4.5. Are the numbers of participants lost to follow-up implausible?
4.6. Are there any unexplained inconsistencies in the numbers of participants?
4.7. Are any outcome data, including estimated treatment effects, implausible?
4.8. Are the means and variances of integer data impossible?
4.9. Are there errors in statistical results?
4.10. Are any other contradictions implied by the data?
4.11. Are there inconsistencies in descriptions of methods and results across publications describing the study?