ArticleEuropean journal of epidemiology2009
Scientific misconduct and participation rates in population-based epidemiological research: the NOWAC study.
Article in European journal of epidemiology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the possible effect of a scientific misconduct case and the subsequent immense publicity on the participation rates in a population based epidemiological study. We investigated willingness to participate, by donating a blood sample, among random samples of 500 women included in the Norwegian women and cancer study-NOWAC. The women were asked to participate during a period before, under and after the discovery of misconduct January 2006. This population based sampling was independent of the case. Letters of invitation and a questionnaire were regularly mailed from 2003 till 2006, and here we use the period from November till April of two subsequent years; 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. Population based in Norway 30,216 Norwegian women born 1943-1957 invited to participate. Response rates (%) for returning a blood sample and for actively responding with a "No" to the invitation. The active response of a "No" increased immediately after the publicity of the scientific misconduct, but lasted only for 2 months. The response rate for blood samples was only marginally affected in the same period, and increased over previous level 3 months after the misconduct was publicly known. The widespread publicity related to the scientific misconduct did not affect the response rate in this population based study. This might imply that the public trust increased as a consequence of the public discussions that followed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19165609What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.