Impact of Research Conducted with Poor Integrity on Systematic Review Findings and Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations

Introduction: Policy and practice recommendations should always be based upon the best available evidence. A key issue that challenges the integrity of these recommendations is that of fraudulent and erroneous research. Predatory journals, due to their lack of clearly defined peer review processes, have an increased likelihood of publishing fraudulent or erroneous research. When recommendations are based upon studies published within predatory journals, the synthesised work has a greater risk of being compromised, potentially resulting in healthcare recommendations that are not based on the best-available evidence. Methods: The 56 journals from which the 113 studies used to inform the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) ‘Motor neuron disease: assessment and management’ guideline were extracted. The Dadkhah Checklist – a 14-step tool that numerically distinguishes journals based on their level of predatory behaviour – was employed to determine the Predatory Rate (PR) of each journal. Any potential relationship between PR and the Risk of Bias of studies was analysed. Results: The predatory threshold (PR > 0.22) was exceeded by six journals, amongst which 21 studies (18.54%) were published. A further 42 journals (81 studies; 71.68%) demonstrated predatory characteristics (0 > PR > 0.22), with only eight journals (11 studies; 9.73%) deemed nonpredatory (PR = 0). No guideline theme exceeded the predatory threshold. No significant difference was observed between PR and Risk of Bias. Whilst applying the Dadkhah Checklist, we identified several challenges and were not confident that predatory rate truly reflected the legitimacy of a journal. Discussion: There is a notable presence of studies from potentially predatory journals within the NICE ‘Motor neuron disease: assessment and management’ guideline. Methods to assess journals for their predatory status require improvement. These findings indicate that there is a need for further research to determine the broader impact of predatory publishing on evidence-based healthcare recommendations.