IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003886.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials

Author

Listed:
  • Erick H Turner
  • Andrea Cipriani
  • Toshi A Furukawa
  • Georgia Salanti
  • Ymkje Anna de Vries

Abstract

Background: Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs. Methods and findings: Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Conclusions: Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature. Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Erick H Turner & Andrea Cipriani & Toshi A Furukawa & Georgia Salanti & Ymkje Anna de Vries, 2022. "Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(1), pages 1-21, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003886
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kerry Dwan & Douglas G Altman & Juan A Arnaiz & Jill Bloom & An-Wen Chan & Eugenia Cronin & Evelyne Decullier & Philippa J Easterbrook & Erik Von Elm & Carrol Gamble & Davina Ghersi & John P A Ioannid, 2008. "Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(8), pages 1-31, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Schaub, Jason & Stander, Willem J. & Montgomery, Paul, 2022. "LGBTQ+ Young People’s Health and Well-being Experiences in Out-of-home Social Care: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    2. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    3. Wynanda A van Enst & Rob J P M Scholten & Lotty Hooft, 2012. "Identification of Additional Trials in Prospective Trial Registers for Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(8), pages 1-5, August.
    4. Daniele Fanelli, 2010. "Do Pressures to Publish Increase Scientists' Bias? An Empirical Support from US States Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-7, April.
    5. Paolo Crosetto & Antonio Filippin & Janna Heider, 2015. "A Study of Outcome Reporting Bias Using Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 61(1), pages 239-262.
    6. Thomas Pfeiffer & Lars Bertram & John P A Ioannidis, 2011. "Quantifying Selective Reporting and the Proteus Phenomenon for Multiple Datasets with Similar Bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(3), pages 1-7, March.
    7. Ana Virgolino & Osvaldo Santos & Joana Costa & Mónica Fialho & Ivo Iavicoli & Tiina Santonen & Hanna Tolonen & Evangelia Samoli & Klea Katsouyanni & Georgios Baltatzis & Flavia Ruggieri & Annalisa Abb, 2021. "Challenges to Evidence Synthesis and Identification of Data Gaps in Human Biomonitoring," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, March.
    8. Carl Berning & Bernd Weiß, 2016. "Publication bias in the German social sciences: an application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 901-917, March.
    9. repec:plo:pone00:0122204 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    11. Buehling, Kilian, 2021. "Changing research topic trends as an effect of publication rankings – The case of German economists and the Handelsblatt Ranking," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    12. Paolo Girardi & Anna Vesely & Daniël Lakens & Gianmarco Altoè & Massimiliano Pastore & Antonio Calcagnì & Livio Finos, 2024. "Post-selection Inference in Multiverse Analysis (PIMA): An Inferential Framework Based on the Sign Flipping Score Test," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 89(2), pages 542-568, June.
    13. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    14. Salandra, Rossella, 2018. "Knowledge dissemination in clinical trials: Exploring influences of institutional support and type of innovation on selective reporting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(7), pages 1215-1228.
    15. A C Del Re & Glen I Spielmans & Christoph Flückiger & Bruce E Wampold, 2013. "Efficacy of New Generation Antidepressants: Differences Seem Illusory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(6), pages 1-4, June.
    16. Sean P David & Jennifer J Ware & Isabella M Chu & Pooja D Loftus & Paolo Fusar-Poli & Joaquim Radua & Marcus R Munafò & John P A Ioannidis, 2013. "Potential Reporting Bias in fMRI Studies of the Brain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-9, July.
    17. repec:plo:pone00:0070586 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Thomas J. Kniesner & W. Kip Viscusi, 2023. "Compensating Differentials for Occupational Health and Safety Risks: Implications of Recent Evidence," Research in Labor Economics, in: 50th Celebratory Volume, volume 50, pages 83-116, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    19. Alex Eble & Peter Boone & Diana Elbourne, 2017. "On Minimizing the Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Economics," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 31(3), pages 687-707.
    20. repec:plo:pone00:0014618 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Roderik F Viergever & Davina Ghersi, 2011. "The Quality of Registration of Clinical Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-8, February.
    22. repec:plo:pmed00:0050230 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Donald Schopflocher & Eric VanSpronsen & Candace I. J. Nykiforuk, 2014. "Relating Built Environment to Physical Activity: Two Failures to Validate," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    24. repec:plo:pone00:0025258 is not listed on IDEAS
    25. repec:plo:pmed00:1000144 is not listed on IDEAS
    26. Ewelina Rogozińska & Elizabeth Gargon & Rocío Olmedo-Requena & Amani Asour & Natalie A M Cooper & Claire L Vale & Janneke van’t Hooft, 2020. "Methods used to assess outcome consistency in clinical studies: A literature-based evaluation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-12, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003886. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.