Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial

doi:10.1136/bmj.38035.705185.F6

BMJ 2004;328:742-743 (27 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.38035.705185.F6 (published 23 February 2004)

Paper

Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers' perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial

Sara Schroter, senior researcher¹, Julie Morris, head of medical statistics², Samena Chaudhry, preregistration house officer³, Richard Smith, editor¹, Helen Barratt, research assistant¹

¹ BMJ Editorial Office, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, ² Medical Statistics Department, Education and Research Centre, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester M23 9LT, ³ General Surgery, North Staffordshire University Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 7LN

Correspondence to: S Schroter sschroter@bmj.com

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Introduction

Financial relationships among industry and academic institutionsare diverse and common.¹ These interests can influence authors'conclusions² and readers' perceptions of published studies.³We report the effects on reader perceptions of different statementsof competing interests for two manuscripts.

Participants, methods, and results

We used computer generated random numbers from the British MedicalAssociation's membership database (to select 900 BMJ readers).We randomised 450 to be sent a paper about the use of problemlists in letters between hospital doctors and general practitioners⁴(problem lists paper) and 450 to be sent a paper indicatingthat the impact of pain from herpes zoster on patients' dailyfunctioning may be substantial (herpes paper).⁵ We previouslyreported a study using the herpes paper,³ and we have incorporatedthe results from that study in this paper. For each of the papers,150 readers received the paper with no competing interests declared,150 with a financial statement, and 150 . . . [Full text of this article]

Comment

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Evidence based publishing: Leanne Tite and Sara Schroter
BMJ 2006 333: 366. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

de Melo-Martin, I., Intemann, K. (2009). How do disclosure policies fail? Let us count the ways. FASEB J. 23: 1638-1642 [Abstract] [Full text]
Smith, R., Feachem, R., Feachem, N. S., Koehlmoos, T. P., Kinlaw, H. (2009). The fallacy of impartiality: competing interest bias in academic publications. JRSM 102: 44-45 [Full text]
Tite, L., Schroter, S. (2006). Evidence based publishing. BMJ 333: 366-366 [Full text]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Vindicated?: Mangesh A Thorat
bmj.com, 3 Apr 2004 [Full text]
What about the data protection act: Christopher M Frerk, et al.
bmj.com, 14 Apr 2004 [Full text]
should journals deliberately introduce bias?: Malcolm E Kendrick
bmj.com, 16 Apr 2004 [Full text]