Table 2.
ANOVA analysis of the primary and secondary outcomes of the abstract with or without funding disclosure and with a positive or negative study outcome
| Funding (N = 206) | No Funding (N = 187) | Mean Difference (MD) | 95% CI | |
| Credibilitya | 4.64 | 4.76 | 0.12 | −0.28 to 0.47 |
| Clinical relevance | 5.30 | 5.16 | 0.14 | −0.54 to 0.27 |
| Interest in reading the full article | 4.51 | 4.65 | 0.14 | −0.40 to 0.71 |
| Methodological quality (sum score)b | 38.65 | 38.87 | 0.22 | −1.82 to 2.17 |
| Negative outcome (N = 200) | Positive outcome (N = 193) | Mean Difference (MD) | 95% CI | |
| Credibilitya | 5.10 | 4.29 | 0.81 | 0.43 to 1.18 |
| Clinical relevancea | 5.16 | 5.30 | 0.14 | −0.28 to 0.53 |
| Interest in reading the full articlea | 4.31 | 4.85 | 0.54 | 0.09 to 1.12 |
| Methodological quality (sum score)b | 5,63 | 5,44 | 0.19 | −3.31 to 0.68 |
a10-point Likertscale score
bAverage score on a 10-point Likertscale of the seven individual items regarding methodological quality (see Additional file 1: Table S1)