ArticleBMJ open2021
Experience and awareness of research integrity among Japanese physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Favorable research environment is a key determinant of research integrity according to a ten-country survey across Central and Eastern Europe.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Developing recommendations on ethical aspects affecting studies in health professions education research.GMS journal for medical education · 2026Article
- Caregiver Burden Associated With Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Infection in Young Children in Japan.Cureus · 2025Article
- Beyond General Deficiency: Structural Imbalance in Research Integrity Awareness and Training Preferences of Medical Staff.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- A study on the knowledge, attitude, and practice of research integrity among medical professionals in Ningxia, China.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Aligning the principles and practice of research integrity and research fairness in global health: a mixed-methods study.BMJ global health · 2024Article
- Current situation and influence factors of scientific integrity in China: A multicenter survey.Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing · 2024Article
- Article
- A cross-sectional survey on principal investigators' clinical research knowledge in Japan.Clinical and translational science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the awareness and practice of clinical research integrity among Japanese physicians.
designA nationwide cross-sectional study conducted in March 2020.
settingAll hospitals in Japan.
participantsPhysicians aged <65 years who work at hospitals participated in clinical research over the past 5 years. The sample was stratified according to geographical location and subspecialty, and 1100 physicians were proportionally selected. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge and awareness of research integrity.
resultsAmong the 1100 participants, 587 (53%) had the experience of being the first author, 299 (27%) had been co-authors only and 214 (19%) had no authorship. A total of 1021 (93%) had experienced learning research integrity, and 555 (54%) became aware of research integrity. The experience of learning about research integrity was highest among those with first authorship (95%) and lowest among those without authorship (89%) (p=0.003). The majority of participants learnt about research integrity for passive reasons such as it being 'required by the institution' (57%) or it being 'required to obtain approval of institutional review board (IRB)' (30%). Potentially inappropriate research behaviours were observed in participants, with 11% indulging in copying and pasting for writing the paper, 11% for gifted authorship and 5.8% for the omission of IRB approval. Factors significantly associated with copying and pasting were being below 40 years old (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.05 to 3.26), being the first presenter (OR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.57) or having passive reasons for learning research integrity (OR: 2.96; 95% CI: 1.57 to 5.59). Furthermore, gifted authorship was significantly associated with being a co-author only (OR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.87) and having passive reasons for learning about research integrity (OR: 1.79; 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.12).
conclusionsMost physicians conducting clinical research have learnt about research integrity, but potentially inappropriate research behaviours are associated with passive reasons for learning.
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.