Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions.

The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

To establish a consensus on the structure and process of healthcare services for patients with concussion in England to facilitate better healthcare quality and patient outcome.

This consensus study followed the modified Delphi methodology with five phases: participant identification, item development, two rounds of voting and a meeting to finalise the consensus statements. The predefined threshold for agreement was set at ≥70%.

Specialist outpatient services.

Members of the UK Head Injury Network were invited to participate. The network consists of clinical specialists in head injury practising in emergency medicine, neurology, neuropsychology, neurosurgery, paediatric medicine, rehabilitation medicine and sports and exercise medicine in England.

A consensus statement on the structure and process of specialist outpatient care for patients with concussion in England.

55 items were voted on in the first round. 29 items were removed following the first voting round and 3 items were removed following the second voting round. Items were modified where appropriate. A final 18 statements reached consensus covering 3 main topics in specialist healthcare services for concussion; care pathway to structured follow-up, prognosis and measures of recovery, and provision of outpatient clinics.

This work presents statements on how the healthcare services for patients with concussion in England could be redesigned to meet their health needs. Future work will seek to implement these into the clinical pathway.