Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
- PMID: 18199864
- DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Abstract
Background: Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials--and the outcomes within those trials--can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk-benefit ratio.
Methods: We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set.
Results: Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 study viewed as positive was not published. Studies viewed by the FDA as having negative or questionable results were, with 3 exceptions, either not published (22 studies) or published in a way that, in our opinion, conveyed a positive outcome (11 studies). According to the published literature, it appeared that 94% of the trials conducted were positive. By contrast, the FDA analysis showed that 51% were positive. Separate meta-analyses of the FDA and journal data sets showed that the increase in effect size ranged from 11 to 69% for individual drugs and was 32% overall.
Conclusions: We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. Selective reporting of clinical trial results may have adverse consequences for researchers, study participants, health care professionals, and patients.
Copyright 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Comment in
-
Selective publication of antidepressant trials.N Engl J Med. 2008 May 15;358(20):2180-1; author reply 2181-2. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc080313. N Engl J Med. 2008. PMID: 18480215 No abstract available.
-
Selective publication of antidepressant trials.N Engl J Med. 2008 May 15;358(20):2181; author reply 2181-2. N Engl J Med. 2008. PMID: 18494075 No abstract available.
-
Selective publication of antidepressant trials.N Engl J Med. 2008 May 15;358(20):2181; author reply 2181-2. N Engl J Med. 2008. PMID: 18494076 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials.PLoS Med. 2022 Jan 19;19(1):e1003886. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886. eCollection 2022 Jan. PLoS Med. 2022. PMID: 35045113 Free PMC article.
-
Reporting Bias in Clinical Trials Investigating the Efficacy of Second-Generation Antidepressants in the Treatment of Anxiety Disorders: A Report of 2 Meta-analyses.JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 May;72(5):500-10. doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.15. JAMA Psychiatry. 2015. PMID: 25806940
-
Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials.Psychol Med. 2019 Sep;49(12):2020-2026. doi: 10.1017/S0033291718002805. Epub 2018 Sep 28. Psychol Med. 2019. PMID: 30261934 Free PMC article.
-
Association of the FDA Amendment Act with trial registration, publication, and outcome reporting.Trials. 2017 Jul 18;18(1):333. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-2068-3. Trials. 2017. PMID: 28720112 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications.BMJ. 2009 Aug 7;339:b2981. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2981. BMJ. 2009. PMID: 19666685 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Direct oral anticoagulant approvals by four major regulatory agencies: a cross-sectional analysis of premarket and postmarket evidence.BMJ Open. 2024 Oct 26;14(10):e090376. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-090376. BMJ Open. 2024. PMID: 39461853 Free PMC article.
-
The Challenges for EU User Testing Policies for Patient Information Leaflets.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Sep 29;21(10):1301. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21101301. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024. PMID: 39457274 Free PMC article.
-
Efforts to enhance reproducibility in a human performance research project.F1000Res. 2023 Nov 1;12:1430. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.140735.1. eCollection 2023. F1000Res. 2023. PMID: 39291139 Free PMC article.
-
Reducing publication bias with Registered Reports.Nat Neurosci. 2024 Sep;27(9):1635. doi: 10.1038/s41593-024-01762-9. Nat Neurosci. 2024. PMID: 39237816 No abstract available.
-
Evaluating the effectiveness of large language models in abstract screening: a comparative analysis.Syst Rev. 2024 Aug 21;13(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s13643-024-02609-x. Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 39169386 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical