Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29286543›Full record

ReviewAlcoholism, clinical and experimental research2018

Detecting Deception in Our Research Participants: Are Your Participants Who You Think They Are?

Mary E McCaul, Gary S Wand

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary E McCaulDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.ORCID 0000-0003-2009-4115
Gary S WandDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland.
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

Stress Effects on Alcohol Consumption: Age of onset and genes in heavy drinkersU01AA020890 · NIAAA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCCAUL, MARY E, WAND, GARY S · 2012 to 2021
$3.6M
Combined mGluR5 PET and fMRI imaging of Sex Differences during Cocaine WithdrawalR01DA042094 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCCAUL, MARY E, WAND, GARY S · 2017 to 2022
$3.5M
HOMOCYSTEINE, A CANDIDATE PERIPHERAL BIOMARKER FOR CEREBRAL mGluR5 ACTIVITY IN COMORBID ALCOHOL- AND TOBACCO USE DISORDERR01AA023483 · NIAAA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCCAUL, MARY E, WONG, DEAN FOSTER · 2015 to 2019
$3.5M
1/4 Alcohol Research Consortium in HIV-Administrative Core (ARCH-AC)U24AA020801 · NIAAA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI CHANDER, GEETANJALI, MCCAUL, MARY E · 2011 to 2021
$3.5M
Nicotine dependence, withdrawal and replacement therapy assessed by PET imagingR01DA026823 · NIDA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI MCCAUL, MARY E, WAND, GARY S · 2011 to 2016
$2.4M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA023483NIAAA NIH HHS U01 AA020890NIAAA NIH HHS U24 AA020801NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA026823NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA042094
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is increasing awareness of the potential negative impacts of participant deception on research, including possibly undermining reliability and reproducibility of study findings. These deceptive individuals set their personal interests above the rules of study participation, thereby jeopardizing data quality as well as placing themselves and others at risk. The costs of participant deception are numerous. Overall, it reduces statistical power and may even result in false conclusions about efficacy and safety. To date, most studies have not utilized sufficient methods to detect rule-breaking subjects. The purpose of this article is to bring to the attention of alcohol and other drug researchers issues involving deceptive participants. The review will suggest alcohol-specific as well as more general strategies to identify and thereby minimize enrollment of these deceptive participants. Specifically, we will identify strategies that are employed in different phases of human alcohol research and advance approaches that may be helpful to the field in reducing these contaminants. As a field, we need to be more proactive in identifying the deceptive participant even at the cost of more burdensome study enrollment. In light of the systemic nature and multipronged damage that this emerging pattern of deception inflicts on clinical research, it is imperative that we each assume greater responsibility for our role in mitigating this source of research contamination.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchDeceptionResearch SubjectsAlcoholismHumansSubstance-Related DisordersAssessmentBiomarkersDeceptionProfessional SubjectResearch Recruitment

Identifiers

PMID29286543
PMCPMC5785431
OpenAlexW2778710119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.