Table 2.
Author, reviewer and reader perspectives on the value of additional tables of data, completed checklists for reporting guidelines and raw study data by group*†
| Group | No/total no (%) most useful to | ||
| To journal editors | To peer reviewers | To readers | |
| Additional tables of data | |||
| Authors | 29/819 (4) | 187/819 (23) | 564/819 (69) |
| Reviewers | 32/1142 (3) | 384/1142 (34) | 662/1142 (58) |
| Readers | 25/911 (3) | 172/911 (19) | 659/911 (72) |
| Overall | 68/2872 (3) | 743/2872 (26) | 1885/2872 (66) |
| Completed checklists for reporting guidelines | |||
| Authors | 365/819 (45) | 291/819 (36) | 96/819 (12) |
| Reviewers | 453/1142 (40) | 414/1142 (36) | 186/1142 (16) |
| Readers | 340/911 (37) | 394/911 (43) | 117/911 (13) |
| Overall | 1158/2872 (40) | 1099/2872 (38) | 399/2872 (14) |
| Raw study data | |||
| Authors | 120/819 (15) | 309/819 (38) | 276/819 (34) |
| Reviewers | 207/1142 (18) | 767/1142 (35) | 385/1142 (34) |
| Readers | 119/911 (13) | 387/911 (42) | 283/911 (31) |
| Overall | 446/2872 (16) | 1093/2872 (38) | 944/2872 (33) |
*Percentages do not sum to 100% across each row because some respondents did not answer every question.
†A table showing the responses for all types of supplementary material is given in our online supplementary material.