Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article. Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI − 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI − 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI − 0.54 to 0.27). In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

中文翻译：

---

在临床试验结果的解释中，行业资金和积极结果的影响：荷兰精神病医生中的一项随机试验

大多数研究倾向于报告积极的结果，而不是消极的或不确定的结果。目前尚不清楚临床医生如何评估随机临床试验的结果。例如，研究资金来源如何影响RCT的评估，积极的发现是否会影响人们认为的可信度和临床相关性？这项研究调查了精神科医生对科学摘要的评估是否受到行业资金披露和积极成果的影响。荷兰的精神科医生被随机评估了描述一种新型抗精神病药物的虚拟RCT的科学摘要。创建了四个不同的摘要，报告缺少或存在行业资金披露以及正面或负面的结果。主要结果是研究结果的可信度和临床相关性（10分李克特量表）。次要结果是对方法质量和阅读全文的兴趣进行评估。395名精神科医生完成了调查（完成率45％）。发现行业资金公开既不影响感知的可信度（均值差MD 0.12； 95％CI-0.28至0.47，p？），也不解释其临床相关性（MD 0.14； 95％CI − 0.54至0.27，p？）。阴性结果被认为比阳性结果更可信（MD 0.81点； 95％置信区间（CI）0.43至1.18，p？），但不影响临床相关性评分（MD -0.14； 95％CI − 0.54至0.27）。在这项研究中，行业资金的披露与精神科医生对虚拟RCT的可信度或临床相关性的判断没有关联。与阴性结果相比，阳性研究结果的可信度较差，但行业资助没有显着影响。精神科医生可能低估了资金来源对研究结果的影响。医生指出负面结果更为可信的事实可能表明人们对科学文献中现有的出版偏见有了更多的认识。