Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33604482›Full record

ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2021

Frequency of concealment, fabrication and falsification of study data by deceptive subjects.

Eric G Devine, Alyssa M Pingitore, Kathryn N Margiotta, Natalia A Hadaway, Kathleen Reid, Kristina Peebles, Jae Won Hyun

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eric G DevineDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Alyssa M PingitoreDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Kathryn N MargiottaDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Natalia A HadawayDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Kathleen ReidDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Kristina PeeblesDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Jae Won HyunDepartment of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Boston University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMany studies have found evidence that research subjects engage in deceptive practices while participating in health-related studies. Little is known, however, about how often subjects use deception and the percentage of studies a typical subject will contaminate with false data. This study examined the frequency of use of different types of deception among a sample of subjects who admit to using deception.

methodsA sample of 59 subjects who had participated in at least two health-related studies in the past 12 months and admitted to using deception in at least one were interviewed. Subjects were asked a series of questions about

resultsSubjects who conceal information in order to enroll in trials reported using concealment in about two thirds (67%) of the trials they participated in over the past 12 months. On average, these subjects' use of concealment was highest for mental health information (58% of studies) and physical health information (57% of studies). The average frequency of fabricating information in order to enroll in trials was 53% with exaggerating health symptoms (45% of studies) and pretending to have a health condition (39% of studies) as the two most widely used strategies. Subjects who falsify study data after enrollment reported doing so 40% of the time. These subjects falsely reported improvement in the health condition being studied in 38% of the trials they took part in. Subjects who admitted to throwing away study medication to create the appearance of compliance reported doing so 32% of the time. LIMITATIONS: Although this study provides evidence that subjects who admit to using deception contaminate a high percentage of studies, larger and more geographically diverse samples are needed to understand the full extent of the problem of deceptive subjects in research. Regional economic, cultural, or organizational factors may be related to the rate of subjects using deception. It is also possible that this sample underrepresents the use of deception as there are likely subjects who use deception that would be unwilling to admit the extent of this behavior.

conclusionDeceptive subject's behavior poses a threat to the integrity of research findings. Given that deceptive subjects contaminate a high percentage of studies they take part in by concealing information, fabricating information, and falsifying study data after enrollment, efforts to identify and exclude these subjects is important to the integrity of research findings. Strategies to exclude deceptive subjects from health research should be used to inform study designs. Widespread adoption of research subject identity registries could greatly reduce the scope of studies that a single deceptive subject could contaminate. Technological solutions that provide an objective measure of medication compliance may be valuable tools for limiting fraudulent reports of compliance.

Indexed as

ConcealmentDeceptive subjectsFabricationFrequency of deceptionProfessional subjects

Identifiers

PMID33604482
PMCPMC7876535
OpenAlexW3125412647

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.