Skip to main content

Table 4 Type of change or clarification requested to primary outcome and/or statistical analysis

From: Influence of peer review on the reporting of primary outcome(s) and statistical analyses of randomised trials

Sub-questions

4a. Change or clarify the trial’s primary outcome measures? (yes, n = 8)

5a. Change or clarify the statistical analysis? (yes, n = 69)

6a. Include any additional analyses? (yes, n = 94)

7a. Modify the overall conclusion? (yes, n = 60)

Who requested the change? n (%)a

 Editor

3 (38%)

22 (32%)

29 (31%)

35 (58%)

 Reviewer

8 (100%)

39 (57%)

77 (82%)

31 (52%)

 Statistician

0 (0%)

32 (46%)

21 (22%)

6 (10%)

 Do not know

0 (0%)

2 (3%)

0 (0%)

2 (3%)

What changes or clarifications were requested? n (%)a

 Change of the primary outcome measure

2 (25%)

n/a

n/a

n/a

 Clarification of the primary outcome measure

2 (25%)

n/a

n/a

n/a

 More cautious conclusion

n/a

n/a

n/a

53 (88%)

 Stronger conclusion

n/a

n/a

n/a

2 (3%)

 Other

4 (50%)

n/a

n/a

5 (8%)

Did you fulfil the request? n (%)

 Yes

5 (62.5%)

66 (96%)

83 (88%)

54 (90%)

 No

3 (37.5%)

3 (4%)

11 (12%)

6 (10%)

What was your main motivation to fulfil the request? n (%)a

 Improvement of the reporting of the trial

4 (50%)

n/a

n/a

32 (53%)

 Improvement of the statistical methods/analysis

n/a

38 (55%)

30 (32%)

n/a

 Avoiding rejection of the paper

2 (25%)

30 (44%)

49 (52%)

29 (48%)

 Other

3 (38%)

16 (23%)

31 (33%)

4 (7%)

How did you judge the request? (1 = not problematic to 10 = very problematic)

 Mean (SD)

6.8 (3.1)

3.6 (2.4)

3.7 (2.6)

3.5 (2.2)

 Median

7.5

3.0

3.0

3.0

 Range

2–10

1–10

1–10

1–10

Does the published article indicate that the analyses have not been pre-specified in the protocol? n (%)

 Yes

n/a

n/a

22 (23%)

n/a

 No

  

72 (77%)

 
  1. aMultiple answers possible