Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial.

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.

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Financial ties with industry are varied and common among academics, doctors and institutions. Clinical educational articles are intended to guide patient care and convey authors' own interpretation of selected data. Author biases in educational articles tend to be less visible to readers compared to those in research papers. Little is known about which types of competing interest statements affect readers' interpretation of the credibility of these articles. This study aims to investigate how different competing interest statements in educational articles affect clinical readers' perceptions of the articles. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 2040 doctors who are members of the British Medical Association (BMA) and receive a copy of the British Medical Journal (The BMJ) each week will be randomly selected and invited by an email to participate in the study. They will be randomised to receive 1 of 2 Clinical Reviews, each with 1 of 4 possible competing interest statements. Versions of each review will be identical except for permutations of the competing interest statement. Study participants will be asked to read their article and complete an online questionnaire. The questionnaire will ask participants to rate their confidence in the conclusions drawn in the article, the importance of the article, their level of interest in the article and their likeliness to change their practice from the article. Factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance will be carried out to assess the impact of the type of competing interest statement and Clinical Review on level of confidence, importance, interest and likeliness to change practice. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol, questionnaire and letter of invitation to participants have been reviewed by members of The BMJ's Ethics Committee for ethical concerns. The trial results will be disseminated to participants and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02548312; Pre-results.

Life and times of the impact factor: retrospective analysis of trends for seven medical journals (1994-2005) and their Editors' views.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To analyse trends in the journal impact factor (IF) of seven general medical journals (Ann Intern Med, BMJ, CMAJ, JAMA, Lancet, Med J Aust and N Engl J Med) over 12 years; and (2) to ascertain the views of these journals' past and present Editors on factors that had affected their journals' IFs during their tenure, including direct editorial policies. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of IF data from ISI Web of Knowledge Journal Citation Reports-Science Edition, 1994 to 2005, and interviews with Editors-in-Chief. SETTING: Medical journal publishing. PARTICIPANTS: Ten Editors-in-Chief of the journals, except Med J Aust, who served between 1999 and 2004. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES IFs and component numerator and denominator data for the seven general medical journals (1994 to 2005) were collected. IFs are calculated using the formula: (Citations in year z to articles published in years x and y)/(Number of citable articles published in years x and y), where z is the current year and x and y are the previous two years. Editors' views on factors that had affected their journals' IFs were also obtained. RESULTS: IFs generally rose over the 12-year period, with the N Engl J Med having the highest IF throughout. However, percentage rises in IF relative to the baseline year of 1994 were greatest for CMAJ (about 500%) and JAMA (260%). Numerators for most journals tended to rise over this period, while denominators tended to be stable or to fall, although not always in a linear fashion. Nine of ten eligible editors were interviewed. Possible reasons given for rises in citation counts included: active recruitment of high-impact articles by courting researchers; offering authors better services; boosting the journal's media profile; more careful article selection; and increases in article citations. Most felt that going online had not affected citations. Most had no deliberate policy to publish fewer articles (lowering the IF denominator), which was sometimes the unintended result of other editorial policies. The two Editors who deliberately published fewer articles did so as they realized IFs were important to authors. Concerns about the accuracy of ISI counting for the IF denominator prompted some to routinely check their IF data with ISI. All Editors had mixed feelings about using IFs to evaluate journals and academics, and mentioned the tension between aiming to improve IFs and 'keeping their constituents [clinicians] happy.' CONCLUSIONS: IFs of the journals studied rose in the 12-year period due to rising numerators and/or falling denominators, to varying extents. Journal Editors perceived that this occurred for various reasons, including deliberate editorial practices. The vulnerability of the IF to editorial manipulation and Editors' dissatisfaction with it as the sole measure of journal quality lend weight to the need for complementary measures.