Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy

被引:1570
作者
Turner, Erick H. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Matthews, Annette M. [1 ,2 ]
Linardatos, Eftihia [4 ]
Tell, Robert A. [1 ]
Rosenthal, Robert [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Vet Affairs Med Ctr, Behav Hlth & Neurosci Div, Portland, OR 97239 USA
[2] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Psychiat, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[3] Oregon Hlth & Sci Univ, Dept Pharmacol, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[4] Kent State Univ, Dept Psychol, Kent, OH 44242 USA
[5] Univ Calif Riverside, Dept Psychol, Riverside, CA 92521 USA
[6] Harvard Univ, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1056/NEJMsa065779
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:252 / 260
页数:9
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2005, STAT STAT SOFTW REL
  • [2] Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
    Chan, AW
    Krieza-Jeric, K
    Schmid, I
    Altman, DG
    [J]. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2004, 171 (07) : 735 - 740
  • [3] Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials -: Comparison of Protocols to published articles
    Chan, AW
    Hróbjartsson, A
    Haahr, MT
    Gotzsche, PC
    Altman, DG
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2004, 291 (20): : 2457 - 2465
  • [4] Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors
    Chan, AW
    Altman, DG
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7494): : 753 - 756
  • [5] Cohen J., 1988, POWERSTATISTICALSCIE, DOI 10.4324/9780203771587
  • [6] Evidence-based medicine: useful tools for decision making
    Craig, JC
    Irwig, LM
    Stockler, MR
    [J]. MEDICAL JOURNAL OF AUSTRALIA, 2001, 174 (05) : 248 - 253
  • [7] *CTR DRUG EV RES, DRUGS FDA FDA APPR D
  • [8] *CTR DRUG EV RES, 2004, MAN POL PROC CLIN RE
  • [9] METAANALYSIS IN CLINICAL-TRIALS
    DERSIMONIAN, R
    LAIRD, N
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1986, 7 (03): : 177 - 188
  • [10] PUBLICATION BIAS AND CLINICAL-TRIALS
    DICKERSIN, K
    CHAN, S
    CHALMERS, TC
    SACKS, HS
    SMITH, H
    [J]. CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1987, 8 (04): : 343 - 353