ArticleF1000Research2016
How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science.
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scrybe: A Secure Audit Trail for Clinical Trial Data Fusion.Digital threats : research and practice · 2023Article
- Blockchained education: challenging the long-standing model of academic institutions.International journal on interactive design and manufacturing · 2022Article
- The HealthChain Blockchain for Electronic Health Records: Development Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Privacy-Preserving in Healthcare Blockchain Systems Based on Lightweight Message Sharing.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- A Decentralized Privacy-Preserving Healthcare Blockchain for IoT.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Tamper-Resistant Mobile Health Using Blockchain Technology.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2017Article
- Article
- Improving data transparency in clinical trials using blockchain smart contracts.F1000Research · 2016Article
- How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science.F1000Research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern · 2017-03-31Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Euphemisms for Plagiarism · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Third Party · Plagiarism of/in Article · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions · Updated to Retraction · · see also: https://publicationethics.org/case/what-extent-plagiarism-demands-retraction-vs-correction
- Retraction · 2017-05-25Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Error in Analyses · Objections by Third Party · Plagiarism of/in Article · Upgrade/Update of Prior Notice(s) ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trust in scientific research is diminished by evidence that data are being manipulated. Outcome switching, data dredging and selective publication are some of the problems that undermine the integrity of published research. Methods for using blockchain to provide proof of pre-specified endpoints in clinical trial protocols were first reported by Carlisle. We wished to empirically test such an approach using a clinical trial protocol where outcome switching has previously been reported. Here we confirm the use of blockchain as a low cost, independently verifiable method to audit and confirm the reliability of scientific studies.
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.