Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial. Issue 2 (5th February 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Schroter, Sara; Pakpoor, Julia; Morris, Julie; Chew, Mabel; Godlee, Fiona
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 9:Issue 2(2019)
• Publication Date: 2019-02-05
• Subjects: general medicine (see internal medicine) -- medical journalism; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025029
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

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.