ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2022
Hidden figures: Revisiting doping prevalence estimates previously reported for two major international sport events in the context of further empirical evidence and the extant literature.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Doping Prevalence in Sport from Indirect Estimation Models: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Sports medicine - open · 2026Pooled it
- Charting the Scientific Landscape of Indirect Estimation Models in Doping Prevalence Research: A Bibliometric Analysis with Narrative Appraisal.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Performance-enhancing drug use in sports: a Bayesian variable selection and profile regression approach to identifying risk factors and estimating prevalence.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2026Article
- Health and Performance Challenges in the Era of Human Enhancement: Insights from Sport Medicine Professionals.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Modeling Evasive Response Bias in Randomized Response: Cheater Detection Versus Self-protective No-Saying.Psychometrika · 2024Article
- Assessing the Prevalence of Doping Among Elite Athletes: An Analysis of Results Generated by the Single Sample Count Method Versus the Unrelated Question Method.Sports medicine - open · 2023Article
- Doping in Paralympic sport: perceptions, responsibility and anti-doping education experiences from the perspective of Paralympic athletes and parasport coaches.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High levels of admitted doping use (43.6% and 57.1%) were reported for two international sport events in 2011. Because these are frequently referenced in evaluating aspects of anti-doping, having high level of confidence in these estimates is paramount. Objectives: In this study, we present new prevalence estimates from a concurrently administered method, the Single Sample Count (SSC), and critically review the two sets of estimates in the context of other doping prevalence estimates. Methods: The survey featuring the SSC model was completed by 1,203 athletes at the 2011 World Championships in Athletics (WCA) (65.3% of all participating athletes) and 954 athletes at the 2011 Pan-Arab Games (PAG) (28.2% of all participating athletes). At WCA, athletes completed both UQM and SSC surveys in randomised order. At PAG, athletes were randomly allocated to one of the two surveys. Doping was defined as "having knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method." Results: Estimates with the SSC model for 12-month doping prevalence were 21.2% (95% CI: 9.69-32.7) at WCA and 10.6% (95% CI: 1.76-19.4) at PAG. Estimated herbal, mineral, and/or vitamin supplements use was 8.57% (95% CI: 1.3-16.11) at PAG. Reliability of the estimates were confirmed with re-sampling method ( Conclusion: Caution in interpreting these estimates as bona fide prevalence rates is warranted. Critical appraisal of the obtained prevalence rates and triangulation with other sources are recommended over "the higher rate must be closer to the truth" heuristics. Non-compliance appears to be the Achilles heel of the indirect estimation models thus it should be routinely tested for and minimised. Further research into cognitive and behaviour aspects, including motivation for honesty, is needed to improve the ecological validity of the estimated prevalence rates.
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.