Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Comparison of GPs’ confidence in the abstract’s conclusions, methodological quality and treatment benefit

From: Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners’ confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial

  Abstracts with no mention of funding source or CoI number = 118 Abstracts reporting funding source only number = 118 Abstracts reporting funding source and CoI number = 118 Abstracts reporting funding source only versus no mention of funding source or CoI Abstracts reporting funding source and CoI versus no mention of funding source or CoI Abstracts reporting funding source and CoI versus funding source only
Outcomes Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean difference (95%CI) Mean difference (95%CI) Mean difference (95%CI)
Confidence in the abstract conclusions (scale 0 to 10) 3.6 (2.6) 3.8 (2.6) 3.2 (2.7) 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0), P = 0.84 -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4), P = 0.39 -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2), P = 0.15
Methodological quality of the study (scale 0 to 10) 4.5 (2.7) 4.6 (2.5) 4.1 (2.6) 0.1 (-0.7; 0.9), P = 0.97 -0.4 (-1.2; 0.4), P = 0.41 -0.5 (-1.3; 0.3), P = 0.30
Treatment benefit in terms of efficacy and safety (scale 0 to 10) 5.0 (2.8) 4.8 (2.7) 4.1 (2.8) -0.1 (-1.0; 0.7), P = 0.93 -0.8 (-1.7; 0.02), P = 0.06 -0.7 (-1.5; 0.1), P = 0.13
  1. The confidence in abstract’s conclusions is evaluated on a 0, (not at all), to 10, (completely confident) scale.
  2. The methodological quality of the study is evaluated on a 0, (very poor), to 10, (excellent quality) scale.
  3. Treatment benefit is evaluated on a 0, (not at all), to 10, (completely confident) scale.
  4. Differences in outcomes between groups were estimated using a linear model and were compared with a Tukey’s HSD test [26]. CI, confidence interval; CoI, conflicts of interest; GP, general practitioner; HSD, honestly significant difference; SD, standard deviation.