Weinfurt 2008a.

Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Data	Setting: community, USA. 3623 participants aged 18 or over and diagnosed with coronary artery disease
Comparisons	Intervention A: drug company pays investigator running costs plus general statement saying ethics committee did not think this would affect patient safety Intervention B: drug company pays investigator money for things outside the study plus general statement saying ethics committee did not think this would affect patient safety Intervention C: Investigator owns part of drug company plus general statement saying ethics committee did not think this would affect patient safety. Intervention D: Institution owns part of drug company plus general statement saying ethics committee did not think this would affect patient safety Comparator: generic financial disclosure: general statement about investigator possibly gaining financially plus general statement saying ethics committee did not think this would affect patient safety
Outcomes	Willingness to take part in hypothetical trial
Notes
Risk of bias
Item	Authors' judgement	Description
Random Sequence generation ok?	Unclear	Randomisation mentioned but no more details
Allocation concealment?	Unclear	See above
Blinding of participants and personnel ok?	Unclear	Not clear what participants were told about the purpose of the study although there were 5 disclosure statements so everyone got a statement (i.e. hard to tell which group they were in). Participants completed a questionnaire (probably) so research team unable to influence
Blinding of outcome assessment ok?	Unclear	See above
Incomplete outcome data handled ok?	Unclear	Only P values presented, not absolute numbers
Free of selective reporting?	Yes	Willingness to participate outcome presented, which is all the review needs
Was the study free of other bias?	No	Hypothetical trial
Overall bias?	Yes	High risk of bias