ArticleTrials2011
Who is the research subject in cluster randomized trials in health research?
Article in Trials, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials.PLoS medicine · 2012Guideline
- Restrictive vs liberal blood transfusion for acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding: rationale and protocol for a cluster randomized feasibility trial.Transfusion medicine reviews · 2013Trial
- Trial
- Gaps in the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials: a citation analysis reveals a need for updated ethics guidelines.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Establishing the safety of selective digestive decontamination within the ICU population: a bridge too far?Trials · 2023Article
- Designing and undertaking randomised implementation trials: guide for researchers.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Ethical and Regulatory Issues for Embedded Pragmatic Trials Involving People Living with Dementia.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020Article
- The role of data and safety monitoring boards in implementation trials: When are they justified?Journal of clinical and translational science · 2020Article
- Informed consent and community engagement in open field research: lessons for gene drive science.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Informed consent in field trials of gene-drive mosquitoes.Gates open research · 2017Article
- Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- Ethical and regulatory issues of pragmatic cluster randomized trials in contemporary health systems.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2015Article
- Ethical issues in field trials of genetically modified disease-resistant mosquitoes.Developing world bioethics · 2014Article
- Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries.Trials · 2014Article
- Researchers' perceptions of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials: a qualitative analysis.Trials · 2013Article
- Ethics of clinical science in a public health emergency: drug discovery at the bedside.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2013Article
- What is the role and authority of gatekeepers in cluster randomized trials in health research?Trials · 2012Article
- Article
- Encouraging innovation, unintended consequences, and group-level research.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article is part of a series of papers examining ethical issues in cluster randomized trials (CRTs) in health research. In the introductory paper in this series, we set out six areas of inquiry that must be addressed if the CRT is to be set on a firm ethical foundation. This paper addresses the first of the questions posed, namely, who is the research subject in a CRT in health research? The identification of human research subjects is logically prior to the application of protections as set out in research ethics and regulation. Aspects of CRT design, including the fact that in a single study the units of randomization, experimentation, and observation may differ, complicate the identification of human research subjects. But the proper identification of human research subjects is important if they are to be protected from harm and exploitation, and if research ethics committees are to review CRTs efficiently.We examine the research ethics literature and international regulations to identify the core features of human research subjects, and then unify these features under a single, comprehensive definition of human research subject. We define a human research subject as any person whose interests may be compromised as a result of interventions in a research study. Individuals are only human research subjects in CRTs if: (1) they are directly intervened upon by investigators; (2) they interact with investigators; (3) they are deliberately intervened upon via a manipulation of their environment that may compromise their interests; or (4) their identifiable private information is used to generate data. Individuals who are indirectly affected by CRT study interventions, including patients of healthcare providers participating in knowledge translation CRTs, are not human research subjects unless at least one of these conditions is met.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.