Table 3

ANCOVA analysis of the level of confidence, importance and interest in the reviews by intervention group adjusting for age, sex, job type and years since qualification

COI allocation group, mean (95% CI)P value
Honoraria and travelResearch fundingAdvisory board and consultanciesNone
Gout review
N99939090*
Primary outcome
  Level of confidence in conclusions drawn†7.1 (6.8 to 7.5)7.4 (7.1 to 7.8)7.0 (6.7 to 7.4)‡7.4 (7.0 to 7.8)0.32
Secondary outcomes
  Importance of article†6.9 (6.6 to 7.3)6.7 (6.4 to 7.1)6.4 (6.1 to 6.8)7.0 (6.6 to 7.4)0.09
  Level of interest in article†6.7 (6.5 to 7.0)6.5 (6.2 to 6.9)6.2 (5.9 to 6.6)7.0 (6.7 to 7.4)0.028§
Dyspepsia review
N10095¶9387
Primary outcome
  Level of confidence in conclusions drawn†6.2 (5.8 to 6.6)6.1 (5.7 to 6.5)6.2 (5.8 to 6.6)**6.4 (6.0 to 6.8)0.78
Secondary outcomes
  Importance of article†6.3 (6.0 to 6.7)6.3 (5.9 to 6.7)6.5 (6.2 to 6.9)6.3 (5.9 to 6.7)0.79
  Level of interest in article†5.9 (5.5 to 6.3)5.8 (5.4 to 6.2)6.0 (5.6 to 6.4)5.8 (5.4 to 6.2)0.83
  • *One respondent did not give ratings for confidence, importance or interest level, hence data here relates to n=90.

  • †Outcomes measured on 10-point Likert scales with high scores indicating high levels of confidence, importance and interest.

  • ‡One respondent did not give a rating for confidence, hence for this outcome the data relates to n=89.

  • §Allocation group ‘none’ had a significantly higher level of interest compared with allocation group ‘advisory board and consultancies’ (p=0.018 with Bonferroni correction).

  • ¶One respondent did not give ratings for confidence, importance or interest level, hence data here relates to n=95.

  • **One respondent did not give a rating for confidence or interest, hence for these outcomes the data relates to n=92.

  • ANCOVA, analysis of covariance; COI, competing interest.