Trial reportBMC medicine2014
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.
Trial report in BMC medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01679873 (Impact of Reporting Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in RCTs' Abstracts on General Practitioners' Confidence), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Impact of Reporting Funding Sources and Conflicts of Interest in RCTs' Abstracts on General Practitioners' Confidence: a 3-arms Randomized Controlled Trial.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Are Disease Awareness Links on Prescription Drug Websites Misleading? A Randomized Study.Journal of health communication · 2016Trial
- Research on policy mechanisms to address funding bias and conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a scoping review.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- Interpretation of time-to-event outcomes in randomized trials: an online randomized experiment.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2019Article
- Diclofenac Potassium in Acute Postoperative Pain and Dysmenorrhoea: Results from Comprehensive Clinical Trial Reports.Pain research & management · 2018Review
- Publication and non-publication of drug trial results: a 10-year cohort of trials in Norwegian general practice.BMJ open · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed.
methodsWe planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5.
resultsBetween October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only.
conclusionsWe found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.