Co‐Design of the Structured Personalised Assessment for Reviews After Cancer (SPARC) Intervention

Assessed by RV002 · Business Manager

Assessed on 3 Nov 2025

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

DOI 10.1111/hex.70174 (opens in new tab)

Resource ripekg:research-integrity-assessment/RIPEAFAE05A8AC6044D87

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: Nothing found on Retraction Watch or on journal website

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: Agree - nothing found on journal website or PubPeer

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: Agree - no authors listed on Retraction Watch

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: Agree - it is not clear to me whether the study constitutes a clinical trial that would need to be registered, but from the description it does seem to have included patients as participants. I'm also not 100% clear where to check for registration details but it does seem to have received REC approval (Sep 2019 - https://www.hra.nhs.uk/planning-and-improving-research/application-summaries/research-summaries/co-designing-digitally-enhanced-cancer-aftercare/) before the first workshop was held

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 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: Very slight concern about possible non-registration but I think someone who knows more about this area may well dismiss this as not a relevant concern