The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Blockchain technology for improving clinical research quality
Open accessAbstract
Reproducibility, data sharing, personal data privacy concerns and patient enrolment in clinical trials are huge medical challenges for contemporary clinical research. A new technology, Blockchain, may be a key to addressing these challenges and should draw the attention of the whole clinical research community.Blockchain brings the Internet to its definitive decentralisation goal. The core principle of Blockchain is that any service relying on trusted third parties can be built in a transparent, decentralised, secure "trustless" manner at the top of the Blockchain (in fact, there is trust, but it is hardcoded in the Blockchain protocol via a complex cryptographic algorithm). Therefore, users have a high degree of control over and autonomy and trust of the data and its integrity. Blockchain allows for reaching a substantial level of historicity and inviolability of data for the whole document flow in a clinical trial. Hence, it ensures traceability, prevents a posteriori reconstruction and allows for securely automating the clinical trial through what are called Smart Contracts. At the same time, the technology ensures fine-grained control of the data, its security and its shareable parameters, for a single patient or group of patients or clinical trial stakeholders.In this commentary article, we explore the core functionalities of Blockchain applied to clinical trials and we illustrate concretely its general principle in the context of consent to a trial protocol. Trying to figure out the potential impact of Blockchain implementations in the setting of clinical trials will shed new light on how modern clinical trial methods could evolve and benefit from Blockchain technologies in order to tackle the aforementioned challenges.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
3 retracted
How blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science
Irving, G., & Holden, J. (2017) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.8114.3 · Cited by 59
RetractedHow blockchain-timestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science
Irving, G. J., & Holden, J. (2016) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.8114.2 · Cited by 30
RetractedIrving, G. J., & Holden, J. (2016) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · doi:10.12688/f1000research.8114.1 · Cited by 1
RetractedDermyshi, E., Wang, Y., Yan, C., Hong, W., Qiu, G., Gong, X., & Zhang, T. (2017) · Neonatology · doi:10.1159/000454668 · Cited by 24,451
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 · Cited by 10,505
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2005) · CHANCE · doi:10.1080/09332480.2005.10722754 · Cited by 4,702 · cited 1×
“Ioannidis et al. estimated a rate of about 80% non-reproducible studies [1 – 3].”
BackgroundFreiman, J. A., Chalmers, T. C., Smith, H., & Kuebler, R. R. (1978) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197809282991304 · Cited by 1,628
Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Evans, S. J. W., Gøtzsche, P. C., O'Neill, R. T., Altman, D. G., Schulz, K., Moher, D., & for the CONSORT Group* (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00009 · Cited by 1,593
Cited by
Ethical and regulatory challenges of AI technologies in healthcare: A narrative review
Mennella, C., Maniscalco, U., De Pietro, G., & Esposito, M. (2024) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e26297 · Cited by 1,229
Blockchain technology in healthcare: a systematic review
Agbo, C. C., Mahmoud, Q. H., & Eklund, J. M. (2019) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare7020056 · Cited by 1,131
Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: A Comprehensive Review and Directions for Future Research
Khezr, S., Moniruzzaman, M., Yassine, A., & Benlamri, R. (2019) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app9091736 · Cited by 575
Opportunities for Use of Blockchain Technology in Medicine
Radanović, I., & Likić, R. (2018) · Applied Health Economics and Health Policy · doi:10.1007/s40258-018-0412-8 · Cited by 348
Blockchain for COVID-19: Review, Opportunities, and a Trusted Tracking System
Marbouh, D., Abbasi, T., Maasmi, F., Omar, I. A., Debe, M. S., Salah, K., Jayaraman, R., & Ellahham, S. (2020) · Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering · doi:10.1007/s13369-020-04950-4 · Cited by 267
Metadata
- Authors
- Benchoufi, M., & Ravaud, P.
- Venue
- Trials
- Published
- 2017-07-19
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 335-335
- ISSN
- 1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2738959495
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 64.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Blockchain technology for improving clinical research quality. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s13063-017-2035-z
- The paper
- Benchoufi, M., & Ravaud, P. (2017). Blockchain technology for improving clinical research quality. Trials. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2035-z
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.