ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Increasing Rigor in Online Health Surveys Through the Reduction of Fraudulent Data.
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. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Practical Fraud Detection and Prevention in Incentivized Online Surveys: Secondary Analysis of the ADOPT Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Battling the Bots and Defending Against Fraudulent Responses in an International Community-Engaged Web-Based Survey With People Living With Long COVID: Methodological Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Self-Reported Symptom Burden and Clinical Characteristics in Fibromyalgia: Evidence from a Large Online Survey in Italy.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Article
- Imposter Participants in Online Nursing Research: Prevalence, Red Flags, and Risk Mitigation Strategies.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
- Preoperative imaging for endometriosis awareness: an online survey study.Frontiers in reproductive health · 2026Article
- Psychometric validation of the English version of the digital wellbeing questionnaire for young adults.PloS one · 2026Article
- Development of a practice-based skills measure for community-based organizations implementing evidence-based interventions to advance equity.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Unlabelled: Online surveys have become a key tool of modern health research, offering a fast, cost-effective, and convenient means of data collection. It enables researchers to access diverse populations, such as those underrepresented in traditional studies, and facilitates the collection of stigmatized or sensitive behaviors through greater anonymity. However, the ease of participation also introduces significant challenges, particularly around data integrity and rigor. As fraudulent responses-whether from bots, repeat responders, or individuals misrepresenting themselves-become more sophisticated and pervasive, ensuring the rigor of online surveys has never been more crucial. This article provides a comprehensive synthesis of practical strategies that help to increase the rigor of online surveys through the detection and removal of fraudulent data. Drawing on recent literature and case studies, we outline several options that address the full research cycle from predata collection strategies to validation post data collection. We emphasize the integration of automated screening techniques (eg, CAPTCHAs and honeypot questions) and attention checks (eg, trap questions) for purposeful survey design. Robust recruitment procedures (eg, concealed eligibility criteria and 2-stage screening) and a proper incentive or compensation structure can also help to deter fraudulent participation. We examine the merits and limitations of different sampling methodologies, including river sampling, online panels, and crowdsourcing platforms, offering guidance on how to select samples based on specific research objectives. Post data collection, we discuss metadata-based techniques to detect fraudulent data (eg, duplicate email or IP addresses, response time analysis), alongside methods to better screen for low-quality responses (eg, inconsistent response patterns and improbable qualitative responses). The escalating sophistication of fraud tactics, particularly with the growth of artificial intelligence (AI), demands that researchers continuously adapt and stay vigilant. We propose the use of dynamic protocols, combining multiple strategies into a multipronged approach that can better filter for fraudulent data and evolve depending on the type of responses received across the data collection process. However, there is still significant room for strategies to develop, and it should be a key focus for upcoming research. As online surveys become increasingly integral to health research, investing in robust strategies to screen for fraudulent data and increasing the rigor of studies is key to upholding scientific integrity.
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.