Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

7 Citations (Scopus)
167 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background Previous studies on reporting bias generally examined whether trials were published in stand-alone publications. In this study, we investigated whether pooled-trials publications constitute a specific form of reporting bias. We assessed whether negative trials were more likely to be exclusively published in pooled-trials publications than positive trials and examined the research questions, individual trial results, and conclusions presented in these articles. Methods Data from a cohort of 105 randomized controlled trials of 16 antidepressants were extracted from earlier publications and the corresponding Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify pooled-trials publications. Results We found 107 pooled-trials publications that reported results of 23 (72%) of 32 trials not published in stand-alone publications. Only two (3.8%) of 54 positive trials were published exclusively in pooled-trials publications, compared with 21 (41.1%) of 51 negative trials (p <0.001). Thirteen (12%) of 107 publications had as primary aim to present data on the trial's primary research question (drug efficacy compared with placebo). Only four of these publications, reporting on five (22%) trials, presented individual efficacy data for the primary research question. Additionally, only five (5%) of 107 pooled-trials publications had a negative conclusion. Conclusions Compared with positive trials, negative trials of antidepressants for depression were much more likely to be reported exclusively in pooled-trials publications. Pooled-trials publications flood the evidence base with often-redundant articles that, instead of addressing the original primary research question, present (positive) results on secondary questions. Therefore, pooled-trials publications distort the apparent risk-benefit profile of antidepressants.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2020-2026
Number of pages7
JournalPsychological Medicine
Volume49
Issue number12
Early online date28-Sept-2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Sept-2019

Keywords

  • Antidepressants
  • bias
  • depression
  • pooled-trials publication bias
  • PAROXETINE
  • EFFICACY
  • RELEASE

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this