ReviewContemporary clinical trials2018
Deception in clinical trials and its impact on recruitment and adherence of study participants.
Review in Contemporary clinical trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- From randomised trial to national implementation: employment outcomes from individual placement and support in english alcohol and drug treatment services.International journal of public health · 2026Trial
- Detecting Deception and Ensuring Data Integrity in a Nationwide mHealth Randomized Controlled Trial: Factorial Design Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Correlates of high phosphatidylethanol (PEth) levels and their concordance with self-reported heavy alcohol consumption among men who have sex with men who binge drink alcohol.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2022Trial
- Knowing is Half the Battle: The Factors Leading to Efficient Recruitment of Representative Samples in Schizophrenia Research.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2025Article
- A proof-of-concept randomized crossover clinical trial of a first-in-class vasopressin 1a receptor antagonist for PTSD: Design, methods, and recruitment.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2023Article
- The ethical anatomy of payment for research participants.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2022Article
- Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Point-of-Care Test for Assessing Tenofovir Adherence: Feasibility and Recommendations from Women in an Oral PrEP Program in Kenya and Their Healthcare Providers.AIDS and behavior · 2021Article
- Remote Methods for Conducting Tobacco-Focused Clinical Trials.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2020Review
- Use of a Novel Couples' Verification Tool in a Male Partner Treatment Study of Women With Recurrent Bacterial Vaginosis.Sexually transmitted diseases · 2020Article
- Audio-digital recordings for surveillance in clinical trials of major depressive disorder.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2019Article
- Are Payments to Human Research Subjects Ethically Suspect?Journal of clinical research best practices · 2019Article
- Association Between Financial Incentives and Participant Deception About Study Eligibility.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- The Extraordinary Importance of Sleep: The Detrimental Effects of Inadequate Sleep on Health and Public Safety Drive an Explosion of Sleep Research.P & T : a peer-reviewed journal for formulary management · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deceptive practices by participants in clinical research are prevalent. It has been shown that as high as 75% of participants withheld information to avoid exclusion from studies. Self-reported adherence has been found to be largely inaccurate. Overcoming deception is a critical issue, since the safety of study participants, the integrity of research data and research resources are at risk. In this review article, we examine deception from the perspective of investigators conducting clinical trials; we describe the types (concealment, fabrication, drug holidays and collusion), prevalence, risks, and predictors of deception, and propose an approach to reduce the impact of deception, especially on adherence, in clinical trials.
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.