Ibrutinib and rituximab versus immunochemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (ENRICH): a randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Ibrutinib and rituximab versus immunochemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (ENRICH): a randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial.
Item: Ibrutinib and rituximab versus immunochemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (ENRICH): a randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial.
Rating: 96
Author: Αlpha¹

Lewis DJ, Jerkeman M, Sorrell L, Wright D, Glimelius I, Poulsen CB, Pasanen A, Rawstron A, Wader KF, Morley N, Burton C, Davies AJ, Lagerlöf I, Dalal S, De Tute R, McNamara C, Crosbie N, Toldbod HE, Sanders J, Allgar V, Aroori S, Warner M, Scully C, Wainman B, Christensen JH, Riise J, Sonnevi K, Bishton MJ, Eyre TA, Rule S, ENRICH investigators

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 4.25★ (Strong), 0 critical, 4 high issues for “Ibrutinib and rituximab versus immunochemotherapy in patients with previously untreated mantle cell lymphoma (ENRICH): a randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 superiority trial.”

Links back to this Rigor Record.

Αlpha¹ Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Αlpha¹ Editorial · August 15, 2026

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review

Rigor Reviewed

4.25 / 5

Strong — minor issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern−0.5★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: highEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

No data or code availability links were detected to verify.

Problems surfaced3 types

Numerical inconsistencies1

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions1

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Conclusions only partially backed by the presented evidenceAssessed

Reporting gaps1

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Data/code availability incompleteAssessed

This Αlpha¹ Rigor Review uses AI Rigor Reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This is a well-conducted and well-reported randomized clinical trial with a clear scientific premise, rigorous design, and transparent reporting. The main weakness is the vague data availability statement, which lacks a concrete access mechanism and does not mention code sharing. Minor copyedit issues and a small internal inconsistency in the abstract's adverse event percentages should be addressed.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on all statuses, with minor differences in sub-criteria (outlier handling, assumptions verification) that do not affect the overall pass. The study type is interventional, as both reviewers agreed. The statistics verification component recomputed 5 tests, all consistent, but this does not validate the entire statistical analysis. The citation check found no retracted or non-existent references.

9 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 2 only partially supported (evidence backs part of the claim; gaps or caveats remain); the rest adequately supported.

Efficacy claim is anchored to an adequate endpoint and a meaningful effect.

Recomputed 5 tests: 5 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 1 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 4 via agent-written checks.

1 integrity concern flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions7 pass · 1 warn

The introduction cites multiple prior studies (SHINE, TRIANGLE, etc.) and discusses both strengths and weaknesses of existing treatments. The rationale linking the premise to the study objectives is logical, and the paper acknowledges limitations of prior research, such as the lack of a direct comparison of ibrutinib–rituximab with immunochemotherapy.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The study establishes a clear scientific premise with prior work cited and a logical rationale for the trial.

Evidence

direct quote[Research in context, Evidence before this study]

“The SHINE trial, which compared bendamustine–rituximab–ibrutinib with bendamustine–rituximab, demonstrated an improvement in progression-free survival but not overall survival with the addition of ibrutinib to immunochemotherapy.”