Randomized Prospective Study to Compare Laparoscopic Appendectomy Versus Umbilical Single-Incision Appendectomy
Assessed by RV016 · Research Manager/Fellow
Assessed on 20 Nov 2025
OverallReviewer's overall integrity assessment, derived from all research questions No concerns
DOI 10.1097/sla.0b013e318278d225 (opens in new tab)
Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEAE788FC5E12E564B2
5 Research Questions · 3 Evidence Items
Q1.1 — Does the study have an associated retraction?
Rationale: No rationale provided
Q1.2 — Does the study have an associated expression of concern or other relevant post-publication notice?
Rationale: Pubpeer picked up that it had the wrong trial ID associated with - fab that this app picked that up!
Supporting Evidence (1)
PubPeer ThreadSource: PubPeer.com — post-publication peer review comments
https://pubpeer.com/publications/8C904DDC6613F3E67E532A33130B13 (opens in new tab)PubPeer CommentSource: PubPeer.com — a platform for post-publication peer review
This trial has the wrong trial registry ID associated with it on PubMed: both in the XML on PubMed, and in the body of the text of the article. The ID given is NCT0151529. We believe the correct ID, which we have found by hand searching, is [NCT01515293](https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01515293). This comment is being posted as part of the [OpenTrials.net](http://opentrials.net) project[1], an open database threading together all publicly accessible documents and data on each trial, globally. In the course of creating the database, and matching documents and data sources about trials from different locations, we have identified various anomalies in datasets such as PubMed, and in published papers. Alongside documenting the prevalence of problems, we are also attempting to correct these errors and anomalies wherever possible, by feeding back to the originators. We have corrected this data in the [OpenTrials.net](http://opentrials.net) database; we hope that this trial’s text and metadata can also be corrected at source, in PubMed and in the accompanying paper. Many thanks, Jessica Fleminger, Ben Goldacre* [1] Goldacre, B., Gray, J., 2016. OpenTrials: towards a collaborative open database of all available information on all clinical trials. Trials 17. doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1290-8 Dr Ben Goldacre BA MA MSc MBBS MRCPsych Senior Clinical Research Fellow [](mailto:) [www.ebmDataLab.net](http://www.ebmDataLab.net) Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Department of Primary Care Health Sciences University of Oxford Radcliffe Observatory Quarter Woodstock Road Oxford OX2 6GG
Thread: https://pubpeer.com/publications/8C904DDC6613F3E67E532A33130B13 (opens in new tab)
Q1.3 — Do other studies by the research team highlight causes for concern?
Rationale: No rationale provided
Q2.2 — Are there concerns relating to the timing or absence of study registration?
Rationale: This app picked up under notices of concern that Peerpub stated that this trial had the wrong trial ID associated with it and gave the correct one Which is why the search here failed, but can now check the registration timing! Registered on 2012-01-18 Retrospective registration
Supporting Evidence (2)
Clinical Trial RegistrationSource: Clinical trial registry (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN)
Registration ID: NCT01151529
Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry Link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01151529 (opens in new tab)
Prospective:Whether the trial was registered before participant recruitment began No
Assessment Rationale:How INSPECT-AI determined the prospective registration status by comparing dates Registry registration date (study_first_submit_qc_date) is missing or empty.
Study Design EvidenceDates and timelines extracted by INSPECT-AI from the publication text
Recruitment Start: 09-2009
Recruitment Start Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment start date Methods: 'Between September 2009 and December 2010, a total of 184 patients...were included in the study'; using start of recruitment range per rule 5.
Recruitment End: 12-2010
Recruitment End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the recruitment end date Methods: 'Between September 2009 and December 2010, a total of 184 patients...were included in the study'; no specific LPI date, using end of recruitment range.
Study End: N/A
Study End Rationale:INSPECT-AI's reasoning for how it identified the study end date No explicit study completion date found.
Overall — What is the overall integrity assessment of the study?
Rationale: This app picked up under notices of concern that Peerpub stated that this trial had the wrong trial ID associated with it in the publication and gave the correct one. this is why the registration timing search couldn't find the trial!. Registered on 2012-01-18 Retrospective registration but not necessarily of concern!