There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Related collections

Most cited references 13

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors.

An-Wen Chan, Douglas G. Altman (2005)

To examine the extent and nature of outcome reporting bias in a broad cohort of published randomised trials. Retrospective review of publications and follow up survey of authors. Cohort All journal articles of randomised trials indexed in PubMed whose primary publication appeared in December 2000. Prevalence of incompletely reported outcomes per trial; reasons for not reporting outcomes; association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance. 519 trials with 553 publications and 10,557 outcomes were identified. Survey responders (response rate 69%) provided information on unreported outcomes but were often unreliable--for 32% of those who denied the existence of such outcomes there was evidence to the contrary in their publications. On average, over 20% of the outcomes measured in a parallel group trial were incompletely reported. Within a trial, such outcomes had a higher odds of being statistically non-significant compared with fully reported outcomes (odds ratio 2.0 (95% confidence interval 1.6 to 2.7) for efficacy outcomes; 1.9 (1.1 to 3.5) for harm outcomes). The most commonly reported reasons for omitting efficacy outcomes included space constraints, lack of clinical importance, and lack of statistical significance. Incomplete reporting of outcomes within published articles of randomised trials is common and is associated with statistical non-significance. The medical literature therefore represents a selective and biased subset of study outcomes, and trial protocols should be made publicly available.

0 comments Cited 181 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data.

Craig Whittington, Tim Kendall, Peter Fonagy … (2004)

Questions concerning the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in the treatment of depression in children led us to compare and contrast published and unpublished data on the risks and benefits of these drugs. We did a meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials that evaluated an SSRI versus placebo in participants aged 5-18 years and that were published in a peer-reviewed journal or were unpublished and included in a review by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. The following outcomes were included: remission, response to treatment, depressive symptom scores, serious adverse events, suicide-related behaviours, and discontinuation of treatment because of adverse events. Data for two published trials suggest that fluoxetine has a favourable risk-benefit profile, and unpublished data lend support to this finding. Published results from one trial of paroxetine and two trials of sertraline suggest equivocal or weak positive risk-benefit profiles. However, in both cases, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks outweigh benefits. Data from unpublished trials of citalopram and venlafaxine show unfavourable risk-benefit profiles. Published data suggest a favourable risk-benefit profile for some SSRIs; however, addition of unpublished data indicates that risks could outweigh benefits of these drugs (except fluoxetine) to treat depression in children and young people. Clinical guideline development and clinical decisions about treatment are largely dependent on an evidence base published in peer-reviewed journals. Non-publication of trials, for whatever reason, or the omission of important data from published trials, can lead to erroneous recommendations for treatment. Greater openness and transparency with respect to all intervention studies is needed.