Table 5.

Proportion of reviewers identifying each error by group for the three papers

	Paper 1	Paper 2	Paper 3
	Control	Self-taught	Face-to-face	Control	Self-taught	Face-to-face	Control	Self-taught	Face-to-face
Major
Poor justification for study	31	36	36	22	36	35	30	37	30
Biased randomization procedure	49	58	53	46	72	65	48	65	64
No sample size calculation	21	24	21	22	31	34	25	36	34
Unknown reliability & validity of   outcome measure	13	19	21	15	28	22	45	60	47
Failure to analyse the data on an   intention-to-treat basis	22	18	22	9	13	15	34	45	38
Poor response rate	34	36	37	43	53	51	46	43	47
Unjustified conclusions	43	40	41	36	48	45	44	45	47
Discrepancy between abstract &   results	23	25	28	20	30	30	33	39	37
Inconsistent denominator	38	45	53	40	58	56	17	18	21
Minor
No ethics approval	18	14	14	25	43	30	33	41	32
No explanations for ineligible or   non-randomized cases	50	48	58	30	46	33	56	75	73
Inconsistency between text &   tables	5	2	2	12	12	12	4	5	5
Word reversal	13	9	10	9	15	16	7	9	11
No mention of Hawthorne effect	21	12	19	2	2	2	3	1	2