Changes in the anticitrullinated peptide antibody response in relation to therapeutic outcome in early rheumatoid arthritis: results from the SWEFOT trial

Assessed by RV018 · Methods Support Unit Manager

Assessed on 24 Mar 2026

OverallReviewer's overall integrity assessment, derived from all research questions Some concerns

DOI 10.1136/annrheumdis-2014-205698 (opens in new tab)

Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEA49DCC9BA0CF06921

5 Research Questions · 3 Evidence Items

Q1.1 — Does the study have an associated retraction?

Automated Assessment:Assessment produced by the automated systemNo

Human Assessment:Assessment by a domain expert reviewer, informed by AI resultsNo

Rationale: No rationale provided

Q1.2 — Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?

Automated Assessment:Assessment produced by the automated systemNo

Human Assessment:Assessment by a domain expert reviewer, informed by AI resultsNo

Rationale: No rationale provided

Q1.3 — Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern?

Automated Assessment:Assessment produced by the automated systemYes

Human Assessment:Assessment by a domain expert reviewer, informed by AI resultsYes

Rationale: No rationale provided

Supporting Evidence (1)

Retraction NoticeSource: Retraction Watch database

Monoclonal IgG antibodies generated from joint-derived B cells of RA patients have a strong bias toward citrullinated autoantigen recognition

10.1084/jem.2012148612112018r

Journal: The Journal of Experimental MedicinePublisher: Rockefeller University PressDate: 19 Dec 2018

RetractionWatch ID:Record identifier in the Retraction Watch database 19710

Rationale: Error in Analyses;Error in Methods;Results Not Reproducible

About Author: Lars Klareskog

Retracts: 10.1084/jem.20121486

Q2.2 — Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?

Automated Assessment:Assessment produced by the automated systemUnclear

Human Assessment:Assessment by a domain expert reviewer, informed by AI resultsUnclear

Rationale: No rationale provided

Supporting Evidence (2)

Clinical Trial RegistrationSource: Clinical trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN)

Registration ID: NCT00764725

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov

Registry Link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00764725 (opens in new tab)

Registration Date: 01-10-2008

Prospective:Whether the trial was registered before participant recruitment began No

Assessment Rationale:How INSPECT-AI determined the prospective registration status by comparing dates LLM-extracted recruitment start date (normalized_date) is missing or empty.

Study Design EvidenceDates and timelines extracted by INSPECT-AI from the publication text

Recruitment Start: N/A

Recruitment Start Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment start date No recruitment start date found after a full search.

Recruitment End: N/A

Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date No recruitment end date found after a full search.

Study End: N/A

Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date No study end date found after a full search.

Overall — What is the overall integrity assessment of the study?

Automated Assessment:Assessment produced by the automated systemN/A

Human Assessment:Assessment by a domain expert reviewer, informed by AI resultsSome concerns

Rationale: Some concerns