史坦福医学院学者发文抨击综述，多元分析文章泛滥时指出在2014年，中国学者在genetic association领域这方面的贡献高达65%， 其中绝大多数结果是误导性的。

近期可能还有一篇文章提到中国学者在实验图片造假方面的一个统计数字， 也令人吃惊。

JOHN P.A. IOANNIDIS, The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic
Reviews and Meta-analyses The Milbank Quarterly, Vol. 94 (2016): pp. 485-514

Findings: Publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has increased
rapidly. In the period January 1, 1986, to December 4, 2015, PubMed tags
266,782 items as “systematic reviews” and 58,611 as “meta-analyses.” Annual
publications between 1991 and 2014 increased 2,728% for systematic
reviews and 2,635% for meta-analyses versus only 153% for all PubMedindexed
items. Currently, probably more systematic reviews of trials than new randomized trials are published annually. Most topics addressed by metaanalyses
of randomized trials have overlapping, redundant meta-analyses; sametopic
meta-analyses may exceed 20 sometimes. Some fields produce massive
numbers of meta-analyses; for example, 185 meta-analyses of antidepressants
for depression were published between 2007 and 2014. These meta-analyses are
often produced either by industry employees or by authors with industry ties
and results are aligned with sponsor interests. China has rapidly become the
most prolific producer of English-language, PubMed-indexed meta-analyses.
The most massive presence of Chinese meta-analyses is on genetic associations
(63% of global production in 2014), where almost all results are misleading
since they combine fragmented information from mostly abandoned era of candidate
genes. Furthermore, many contracting companies working on evidence
synthesis receive industry contracts to produce meta-analyses, many of which
probably remain unpublished. Many other meta-analyses have serious flaws.
Of the remaining, most have weak or insufficient evidence to inform decision
making. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses are both non-misleading
and useful.

Conclusions: The production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has
reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic
reviews and meta-analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted.

Keywords: systematic reviews,meta-analyses, bias, conflicts of interest, China,
evidence-based medicine, industry.