Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40840500›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Increasing Rigor in Online Health Surveys Through the Reduction of Fraudulent Data.

Wen Zhi Ng, Sundarimaa Erdembileg, Jean C J Liu, Joseph D Tucker, Rayner Kay Jin Tan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Wen Zhi Ng *Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 91878576.ORCID 0009-0004-2856-1384
Sundarimaa Erdembileg *Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 91878576.ORCID 0009-0003-6396-4894
Jean C J LiuHealth and Social Sciences Cluster, Singapore Institute of Technology, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-0137-3450
Joseph D TuckerLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2804-1181
Rayner Kay Jin TanSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, National University Health System, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore, 65 91878576.ORCID 0000-0002-9188-3368

Funding

Innovative Network on the Science and Practice of Implementation, Research, and Engagement Center (INSPIRE)UM2HD116395 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Elvin H. Geng, Juliet Iwelunmor · 2024 to 2026
$9.2M
Mentoring Multidisciplinary Global HIV Patient-Oriented ResearchK24AI143471 · NIAID · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Joseph David Tucker · 2019 to 2026
$1.4M
NIAID NIH HHS K24 AI143471NICHD NIH HHS UM2 HD116395
6 · The paper itself

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

FraudHealth SurveysInternetData CollectionHumansdata integritydata qualitydata validationfraudfraudulent responsesmethodological rigoronline surveysrecruitment strategiessurvey fraudweb-based researchweb-based surveys

Identifiers

PMID40840500
PMCPMC12370263

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.