Article Text
PDFResearch ethics
Editorial
How not to test the prevalence of therapeutic misconception
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
↵i In an ongoing study of TM led by my colleague Chuck Lidz, we found that subjects recruited from a list of people who indicated an interest in participating in research in general (n=36), compared with newly recruited subjects from a clinic population (n=55), had significantly higher scores (ie, indicating less TM) on the scale used to measure TM (mean scores 38.1 vs 30.4; analysis of variance F=8.491, df=1, p=0.005).5
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Are patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis at risk of a therapeutic misconception?
- Understanding the ‘therapeutic misconception’ from the research participant’s perspective
- Vulnerability, therapeutic misconception and informed consent: is there a need for special treatment of pregnant women in fetus-regarding clinical trials?
- Descriptive epidemiology of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: new evidence and unsolved issues
- Advances in molecular pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
- Informed consent for early-phase clinical trials: therapeutic misestimation, unrealistic optimism and appreciation
- Cerebrospinal fluid phosphorylated neurofilament heavy chain and chitotriosidase in primary lateral sclerosis
- Occupational exposure and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis in a prospective cohort
- Does the index-to-ring finger length ratio (2D:4D) differ in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)? Results from an international online case–control study
- Understanding people’s ‘unrealistic optimism’ about clinical research participation