Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36584205›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

Refinement of the extended crosswise model with a number sequence randomizer: Evidence from three different studies in the UK.

Khadiga H A Sayed, Maarten J L F Cruyff, Peter G M van der Heijden, Andrea Petróczi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors.

Khadiga H A SayedDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4286-6350
Maarten J L F CruyffDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Peter G M van der HeijdenDepartment of Methodology and Statistics, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3345-096X
Andrea PetrócziSchool of Life Sciences, Pharmacy and Chemistry, Kingston University, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8365-6173

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Extended Crosswise Model (ECWM) is a randomized response model with neutral response categories, relatively simple instructions, and the availability of a goodness-of-fit test. This paper refines this model with a number sequence randomizer that virtually precludes the possibility to give evasive responses. The motivation for developing this model stems from a strategic priority of WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) to monitor the prevalence of doping use by elite athletes. For this model we derived a maximum likelihood estimator that allows for binary logistic regression analysis. Three studies were conducted on online platforms with a total of over 6, 000 respondents; two on controlled substance use and one on compliance with COVID-19 regulations in the UK during the first lockdown. The results of these studies are promising. The goodness-of-fit tests showed little to no evidence for response biases, and the ECWM yielded higher prevalence estimates than direct questions for sensitive questions, and similar ones for non-sensitive questions. Furthermore, the randomizer with the shortest number sequences yielded the smallest response error rates on a control question with known prevalence.

Indexed as

COVID-19Doping in SportsAthletesCommunicable Disease ControlHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID36584205
PMCPMC9803288

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.