ArticlePloS one2016
A Comparison of the Cheater Detection and the Unrelated Question Models: A Randomized Response Survey on Physical and Cognitive Doping in Recreational Triathletes.
Article in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Charting the Scientific Landscape of Indirect Estimation Models in Doping Prevalence Research: A Bibliometric Analysis with Narrative Appraisal.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Modeling Evasive Response Bias in Randomized Response: Cheater Detection Versus Self-protective No-Saying.Psychometrika · 2024Article
- Recreational Athletes' Use of Performance-Enhancing Substances: Results from the First European Randomized Response Technique Survey.Sports medicine - open · 2023Article
- Analysis of doping control test results in individual and team sports from 2003 to 2015.Journal of sport and health science · 2020Article
- Refined Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Doping Survey Among Recreational Triathletes: Support for the Nutritional Supplement Gateway Hypothesis.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The Prevalence of Legal Performance-Enhancing Substance Use and Potential Cognitive and or Physical Doping in German Recreational Triathletes, Assessed via the Randomised Response Technique.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Asking Sensitive Questions Using the Randomized Response Approach in Public Health Research: An Empirical Study on the Factors of Illegal Waste Disposal.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
- Prevalence Estimates for Pharmacological Neuroenhancement in Austrian University Students: Its Relation to Health-Related Risk Attitude and the Framing Effect of Caffeine Tablets.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2018Article
- Article
- Doping in Two Elite Athletics Competitions Assessed by Randomized-Response Surveys.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2018Article
- Sport-Induced Substance Use-An Empirical Study to the Extent within a German Sports Association.PloS one · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study assessed the prevalence of physical and cognitive doping in recreational triathletes with two different randomized response models, that is, the Cheater Detection Model (CDM) and the Unrelated Question Model (UQM). Since both models have been employed in assessing doping, the major objective of this study was to investigate whether the estimates of these two models converge. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn anonymous questionnaire was distributed to 2,967 athletes at two triathlon events (Frankfurt and Wiesbaden, Germany). Doping behavior was assessed either with the CDM (Frankfurt sample, one Wiesbaden subsample) or the UQM (one Wiesbaden subsample). A generalized likelihood-ratio test was employed to check whether the prevalence estimates differed significantly between models. In addition, we compared the prevalence rates of the present survey with those of a previous study on a comparable sample.
resultsAfter exclusion of incomplete questionnaires and outliers, the data of 2,017 athletes entered the final data analysis. Twelve-month prevalence for physical doping ranged from 4% (Wiesbaden, CDM and UQM) to 12% (Frankfurt CDM), and for cognitive doping from 1% (Wiesbaden, CDM) to 9% (Frankfurt CDM). The generalized likelihood-ratio test indicated no differences in prevalence rates between the two methods. Furthermore, there were no significant differences in prevalences between the present (undertaken in 2014) and the previous survey (undertaken in 2011), although the estimates tended to be smaller in the present survey. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that the two models can provide converging prevalence estimates. The high rate of cheaters estimated by the CDM, however, suggests that the present results must be seen as a lower bound and that the true prevalence of doping might be considerably higher.
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.