ArticlePloS one2023
Did people really drink bleach to prevent COVID-19? A guide for protecting survey data against problematic respondents.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Engagement begins at recruitment: Comparing videoconference verification to passive online screening for participant retention and study engagement.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Development of a novel methodology for ascertaining scientific opinion and extent of agreement.PloS one · 2024Article
- Access to Information, and Concerns, Myths and Truths about Food Safety during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Overview of the Portuguese Population.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reply to Bronstein and Vinogradov.EMBO reports · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Survey respondents who are non-attentive, respond randomly, or misrepresent who they are can impact the outcomes of surveys. Prior findings reported by the CDC have suggested that people engaged in highly dangerous cleaning practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, including ingesting household cleaners such as bleach. In our attempts to replicate the CDC's results, we found that 100% of reported ingestion of household cleaners are made by problematic respondents. Once inattentive, acquiescent, and careless respondents are removed from the sample, we find no evidence that people ingested cleaning products to prevent a COVID-19 infection. These findings have important implications for public health and medical survey research, as well as for best practices for avoiding problematic respondents in all survey research conducted online.
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.