ArticleAIDS and behavior2026
Procedures to Verify Legitimacy and Uniqueness of Responses in an Online Study with U.S. Young Gay and Bisexual Men Who Use Stimulants.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In this brief report, we describe our procedures to determine the legitimacy and uniqueness of responses in an online study with young gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men in the U.S. Our verification procedures included automated methods (e.g., Qualtrics' fraud detection, and knowledge, attention, and consistency-checks), manual methods (e.g., reviewing individuals' open-ended descriptions of an image), and verification video-conference or phone calls. In total, 9321 individuals completed our eligibility screener and 2637 met eligibility criteria (28.3%). However, we could only ascertain legitimacy and uniqueness of 251 of these entries (9.5% of eligible individuals). Automated and manual methods flagged 68.4 and 9.4% of eligible entries as non-legitimate or duplicate, respectively; another 12.6% of eligible entries were excluded for not being able to confirm legitimacy in verification calls. Researchers should consider a range of automated and manual verification procedures to ensure data quality in internet-based studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42217129What 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.