The optimal oral dose selection of ibandronate in Japanese patients with osteoporosis based on pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties

Assessed by RV009 · Systematic reviewer

Assessed on 12 Nov 2025

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

DOI 10.1007/s13318-014-0242-5 (opens in new tab)

Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEAA805A88D874EA69C

5 Research Questions · 2 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: I agree with INSPECT-AI. That said, I wasn’t completely sure how to interpret the “10 references with no concerns” listed here — they all point to the same paper, and none of the other papers cited within it seem to be included. Since there are no clickable links, it’s also hard to tell how they differ or how reliable the sources are. I also wondered: if there had been “10 references with some concerns,” would that make the paper 10 times more concerning if they all refer to the same source?

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: I agree

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

Automated Assessment:Assessment produced by the automated systemNo

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

Rationale: I agree

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: I agree

Supporting Evidence (2)

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

No trial registration found

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 in the text.

Recruitment End: N/A

Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date No recruitment finish date found in the text.

Study End: N/A

Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date No study end date found in the text.

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: There was one area with 'unclear' while other areas had 'no concerns'.