Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37537678›Full record

Trial reportTrials2023

The detection and management of attempted fraud during an online randomised trial.

Thomas A Willis, Alexandra Wright-Hughes, Clare Skinner, Amanda J Farrin, Suzanne Hartley, Rebecca Walwyn, Ana Weller, Mohamed Althaf, Stephanie Wilson, Chris P Gale and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Thomas A WillisLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. t.a.willis@leeds.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0252-9923
Alexandra Wright-HughesLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Clare SkinnerResearch Governance, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Amanda J FarrinLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Suzanne HartleyLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Rebecca WalwynLeeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Ana WellerCentre for Human-Computer Interaction Design, City, University of London, London, UK.
Mohamed AlthafCentre for Human-Computer Interaction Design, City, University of London, London, UK.
Stephanie WilsonCentre for Human-Computer Interaction Design, City, University of London, London, UK.
Chris P GaleLeeds Institute for Data Analytics, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Robbie FoyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK.

Funding

NIHR Health Services & Delivery Research Programme 16/04/13
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOnline studies offer an efficient method of recruiting participants and collecting data. Whilst delivering an online randomised trial, we detected unusual recruitment activity. We describe our approach to detecting and managing suspected fraud and share lessons for researchers.

methodsOur trial investigated the single and combined effects of different ways of presenting clinical audit and feedback. Clinicians and managers who received feedback from one of five United Kingdom national clinical audit programmes were emailed invitations that contained a link to the trial website. After providing consent and selecting their relevant audit, participants were randomised automatically to different feedback versions. Immediately after viewing their assigned feedback, participants completed a questionnaire and could request a financial voucher by entering an email address. Email addresses were not linked to trial data to preserve participant anonymity. We actively monitored participant numbers, questionnaire completions, and voucher claims.

resultsFollowing a rapid increase in trial participation, we identified 268 new voucher claims from three email addresses that we had reason to believe were linked. Further scrutiny revealed duplicate trial completions and voucher requests from 24 email addresses. We immediately suspended the trial, improved security measures, and went on to successfully complete the study. We found a peak in questionnaires completed in less than 20 seconds during a likely contamination period. Given that study and personal data were not linked, we could not directly identify the trial data from the 268 duplicate entries within the 603 randomisations occurring during the same period. We therefore excluded all 603 randomisations from the primary analysis, which was consequently based on 638 randomisations. A sensitivity analysis, including all 961 randomisations over the entire study except for questionnaire completions of less than 20 seconds, found only minor differences from the primary analysis.

conclusionOnline studies offering incentives for participation are at risk of attempted fraud. Systematic monitoring and analysis can help detect such activity. Measures to protect study integrity include linking participant identifiers to study data, balancing study security and ease of participation, and safeguarding the allocation of participant incentives.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028. Registration date is August 17, 2017.

Indexed as

Electronic MailMotivationFeedbackHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomAudit and feedbackBehaviour changeOnline trialRandomised fractional factorial experimentTrial misconduct

Identifiers

PMID37537678
PMCPMC10401790

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.