↓ Skip to main content

Strategies for dealing with fraud in clinical trials

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Strategies for dealing with fraud in clinical trials
Published in
International Journal of Clinical Oncology, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10147-015-0876-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jay Herson

Abstract

Research misconduct and fraud in clinical research is an increasing problem facing the scientific community. This problem is expected to increase due to discoveries in central statistical monitoring and with the increase in first-time clinical trial investigators in the increasingly global reach of oncology clinical trials. This paper explores the most common forms of fraud in clinical trials in order to develop offensive and defensive strategies to deal with fraud. The offensive strategies are used when fraud is detected during a trial and the defensive strategies are those design strategies that seek to minimize or eliminate the effect of fraud. This leads to a proposed fraud recovery plan (FRP) that would be specified before the start of a clinical trial and would indicate actions to be taken upon detecting fraud of different types. Statistical/regulatory issues related to fraud include: dropping all patients from a site that committed fraud, or just the fraudulent data (perhaps replacing the latter through imputation); the role of intent-to-treat analysis; effect on a planned interim analysis; effect on stratified analyses and model adjustment when fraud is detected in covariates; effect on trial-wide randomization, etc. The details of a typical defensive strategy are also presented. It is concluded that it is best to follow a defensive strategy and to have an FRP in place to follow if fraud is detected during the trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 3%
Unknown 35 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 7 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Mathematics 3 8%
Other 10 28%
Unknown 8 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,289,793
of 22,818,766 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Oncology
#385
of 912 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#153,515
of 264,068 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Oncology
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,818,766 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 912 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,068 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.