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)