ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Identifying Fraudulent Responses in a Study Exploring Delivery Options for Pregnancies Impacted by Gestational Diabetes: Lessons Learned From a Web-Based Survey.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current literature is unclear on the safety and optimal timing of delivery for pregnant individuals with gestational diabetes mellitus, which inspired our study team to conduct a web-based survey study exploring patient and provider opinions on delivery options. However, an incident of fraudulent activity with survey responses prompted a shift in the focus of the research project. Unfortunately, despite the significant rise of web-based surveys used in medical research, there remains very limited evidence on the implications of and optimal methods to handle fraudulent web-based survey responses. Therefore, the objective of this viewpoint paper was to highlight our approach to identifying fraudulent responses in a web-based survey study, in the context of clinical perinatal research exploring patient and provider opinions on delivery options for pregnancies with gestational diabetes mellitus. Initially, we conducted cross-sectional web-based surveys across Canada with pregnant patients and perinatal health care providers. Surveys were available through Research Electronic Data Capture, and recruitment took place between March and October 2023. A change to recruitment introduced a US $5 gift card incentive to increase survey engagement. In mid-October 2023, an incident of fraudulent activity was reported, after which the surveys were deactivated. Systematic guidelines were developed by the study team in consultation with information technology services and the research ethics board to filter fraudulent from true responses. Between October 14 and 16, 2023, an influx of almost 2500 responses (393 patients and 2047 providers) was recorded in our web-based survey. Systematic filtering flagged numerous fraudulent responses. We identified fraudulent responses based on criteria including, but not limited to, identical timestamps and responses, responses with slight variations in wording and similar timestamps, and fraudulent email addresses. Therefore, the incident described in this viewpoint paper highlights the importance of preserving research integrity by using methodologically sound practices to extract true data for research findings. These fraudulent events continue to threaten the credibility of research findings and future evidence-based practices.
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.