Skip to main content

Table 2 The results of the crude and adjusted analyses

From: Impact of peer review on discussion of study limitations and strength of claims in randomized trial reports: a before and after study

 

Manuscript

Publication

Crude difference or proportion (95% CI)

Adjusted difference (95% CI)

Number of limitation-acknowledging sentences (mean, SD)

2.48 (3.62)

3.87 (4.34)

1.39 (1.09–1.76)

0.62 (− 0.23–1.48)

Number of papers with zero limitation-acknowledging sentences (n/total)

202/446

147/446

  

Number of manuscripts with zero limitation-acknowledging sentences whose publication had at least one

63/202

 

31.2 (25.2–37.9)

 

Number of manuscripts with at least one limitation-acknowledging sentence whose publication had none

 

8/244

3.28 (1.67–6.34)

 

Unweighted hedges (%)

2.06 (0.76)

2.13 (0.74)

0.07 (0.04–0.10)

0.04 (− 0.05–0.14)

Unweighted hedges, limitation-acknowledging sentences excluded (%)

2.01 (0.77)

2.05 (0.76)

0.04 (0.01–0.08)

0.06 (− 0.03–0.16)

Weighted hedges (%)

7.07 (2.91)

7.30 (2.82)

0.23 (0.10–0.36)

0.09 (− 0.28–0.47)

Weighted hedges, limitation-acknowledging sentences excluded (%)

6.92 (2.95)

7.05 (2.89)

0.13 (0.01–0.26)

0.05 (− 0.32–0.43)

  1. N = 440 because we were unable to find the impact factor of BMC Dermatology (contributing six manuscript-publication pairs); hedges were counted (and weighted), divided by the total number of words in the discussion section and multiplied by 100
  2. SD standard deviation
  3. Crude difference estimated using a mixed regression model without covariables (N = 446)
  4. Adjusted for journal impact factor (continuous), editorial team size (continuous), and composition of authors in terms of English proficiency (three dummy variables)