Rigor Reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Effect of lateral versus supine positioning on hypoxaemia in sedated adults: multicentre randomised controlled trial.

Name: Αlpha¹ Rigor Record — Effect of lateral versus supine positioning on hypoxaemia in sedated adults: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Item: Effect of lateral versus supine positioning on hypoxaemia in sedated adults: multicentre randomised controlled trial.
Rating: 100
Author: Αlpha¹

Ye H, Chu LH, Xie GH, Hua YJ, Lou Y, Wang QH, Xu ZX, Tang MY, Wang BD, Hu HY, Ying J, Yu T, Wang HY, Wang Y, Ye ZJ, Bao XF, Wang MC, Chen LY, Wang XX, Zhang XB, Huang CS, Wang J, Lu YP, Luo FQ, Zhou W, Wang CG, Cheng H, Liu WJ, Luo J, Wu YQ, Li RR, Wang D, Hou LQ, Shi L, Zhang J, Wang K, Pi X, Zhou R, Yang QQ, Wan PL, Li H, Wu SJ, Song SW, Cui P, Shu L, Islam N, Fang XM

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)

Embed this Rigor badge

Αlpha¹ Rigor Review — 3.75★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 3 high issues for “Effect of lateral versus supine positioning on hypoxaemia in sedated adults: multicentre randomised controlled 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

3.75 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Interventional Study

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
LinksDead data/code link−0.25★

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

Not verified in this report

The numeric-impossibility checks (GRIM/GRIMMER/DEBIT/SPRITE) did not run: 10 reported means were read, and their group size is not stated where the values are printed (this source has no machine-readable table structure). These checks need the count the mean was averaged over, so none was performed.

Problems surfaced4 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

Data authenticity concerns1

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Other integrity concernAssessed

Broken references and links1

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

Dead data/code linksRecomputed

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 transparently reported multicentre RCT with rigorous randomisation, adequate sample size, and comprehensive reporting of ethics, demographics, and data/code availability. The main weaknesses are minor reporting gaps: no explicit CONSORT checklist, a confusing sentence in the statistical analysis section, and a dead link in the data/code availability. Overall, the paper is methodologically sound with no major integrity concerns.

Both reviewers independently scored all eight dimensions and agreed on pass for each; no divergence required reconciliation. The statistics verification recomputed 7 tests consistently, but coverage is limited to tests with test statistics/df or effect estimates with CIs; threshold-only p-values and resampling-based tests were not verified. The citation check found no retracted or unresolved references. The reproducibility check found 1 of 2 links dead.

9 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: 1 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 7 tests: 7 consistent, 0 inconsistent; 5 recomputed directly from the reported test statistics, 2 via agent-written checks.

2 integrity concerns flagged (0 high).

Reporting

Eight Dimensions8 pass

The introduction cites prior studies on hypoxaemia incidence and the theoretical basis for lateral positioning, acknowledges that evidence is limited and derived mainly from small studies, and frames the trial as addressing this gap. Limitations of prior research are implicitly addressed by the large multicentre design, though not explicitly itemised.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedINADEQUATE

Per reviewer (2) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The paper establishes a clear scientific premise with adequate citation of prior work and a logical rationale linking the gap to the study objective.

Evidence

direct quote[Introduction, paragraph 1-3]

“Hypoxaemia is a critical and potentially life threatening complication in sedated patients, with incidence rates ranging from 4% to 71%.”