Dataset Information

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To investigate how different competing interest (COI) statements affect clinical readers' perceptions of education articles. DESIGN:Randomised controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS:Random sample of UK doctors. INTERVENTIONS:We created four permutations of each of two clinical reviews (on gout or dyspepsia), which varied only in terms of the COI statement. Volunteers were blinded and randomised to receive one review and asked to complete a questionnaire after reading it. Blinded factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance were carried out to assess the influence of each review and type of COI on outcomes. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES:Confidence in the article's conclusions (primary outcome), its importance, their level of interest in the article and their likelihood to change practice after reading it. RESULTS:Of 10?889 doctors invited to participate, 1065 (10%) volunteered. Of these, 749 (70%) completed the survey. Analysis of covariance (adjusting for age, sex, job type, years since qualification) showed no significant difference between the groups in participants' confidence in the article (gout: p=0.32, dyspepsia: p=0.78) or their rating of its importance (gout: p=0.09, dyspepsia: p=0.79). For the gout review, participants rated articles with advisory board and consultancies COI as significantly less interesting than those with no COI (p=0.028 with Bonferroni correction). Among participants indicating that they treat the condition and that the article's recommendations differed from their own practice, there was no significant difference in likelihood to change practice between groups (gout: p=0.59, n=59; dyspepsia: p=0.56, n=80). CONCLUSIONS:Doctors' confidence in educational articles was not influenced by the COI statements. Further work is required to determine if doctors do not perceive these COIs as important in educational articles or if they do not pay attention to these statements. More meaningful COI disclosure practices may be needed, which highlight context-specific potential sources of bias to readers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02548312; Results.

SUBMITTER: Schroter S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6377520 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial.

Schroter Sara S Pakpoor Julia J Morris Julie J Chew Mabel M Godlee Fiona F

BMJ open 20190219 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To investigate how different competing interest (COI) statements affect clinical readers' perceptions of education articles.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting and participants</h4>Random sample of UK doctors.<h4>Interventions</h4>We created four permutations of each of two clinical reviews (on gout or dyspepsia), which varied only in terms of the COI statement. Volunteers were blinded and randomised to receive one review and asked to complete a questionnair ...[more]

PMID: 30782923

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Many journals permit authors to submit supplementary material for publication alongside the article. We explore the value, use and role of this material in biomedical journal articles from the perspectives of authors, peer reviewers and readers. DESIGN AND SETTING:We conducted online surveys (November-December 2016) of corresponding authors and peer reviewers at 17 BMJ Publishing Group journals in a range of specialities. PARTICIPANTS:Participants were asked to respond to one of three surveys: as authors, peer reviewers or readers. RESULTS:We received 2872/20340 (14%) responses: authors 819/6892 (12%), peer reviewers 1142/6682 (17%) and readers 911/6766 (14%). Most authors submitted (711/819, 87%) and 80% (724/911) of readers reported reading supplementary material with their last article, while 95% (1086/1142) of reviewers reported seeing these materials sometimes. Additional data tables were the most common supplementary material reported (authors: 74%; reviewers: 89%; readers: 67%). A majority in each group indicated additional tables were most useful to readers (61%-77%); 20%-36%?and 3%-4% indicated they were most useful to peer reviewers and journal editors, respectively. Checklists and reporting guidelines showed the opposite: higher proportions of each group regarded these as most useful to journal editors. All three groups favoured the publication of additional tables and figures on the journal's website (80%-83%), with <4% of each group responding that these do not need to be available. Approximately one-fifth (16%-23%) responded that raw study data should be available on the journal's website, while 24%-33% said that these materials should not be made available anywhere. CONCLUSIONS:Authors, peer reviewers and readers agree that supplementary materials are useful. Supplementary tables and figures were favoured over reporting checklists or raw data for reading but not for study replication. Journals should consider the roles, resource costs and strategic placement of supplementary materials to ensure optimal usage and minimise waste. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02961036.

Dataset Information

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets