Regulating the market in human research participants.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Bioethical Issues in Providing Financial Incentives to Research Participants.Medicolegal and bioethics · 2015
   Article
2. Investigating research and accessing reproductive material.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2014
   Article
3. Effectiveness of strategies to encourage general practitioners to accept an offer of free access to online evidence-based information: a randomised controlled trial.Implementation science : IS · 2009
   Article
4. Risk assessment and communication tools for genotype associations with multifactorial phenotypes: the concept of "edge effect" and cultivating an ethical bridge between omics innovations and society.Omics : a journal of integrative biology · 2009
   Article
5. Using patient monetary incentives and electronically derived patient lists to recruit patients to a clinical trial.Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum issued

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as