Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants
- PMID: 26399904
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021
Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants
Abstract
Objectives: To identify the impact of industry involvement in the publication and interpretation of meta-analyses of antidepressant trials in depression.
Study design and setting: Using MEDLINE, we identified all meta-analyses evaluating antidepressants for depression published in January 2007-March 2014. We extracted data pertaining to author affiliations, conflicts of interest, and whether the conclusion of the abstract included negative statements on whether the antidepressant(s) were effective or safe.
Results: We identified 185 eligible meta-analyses. Fifty-four meta-analyses (29%) had authors who were employees of the assessed drug manufacturer, and 147 (79%) had some industry link (sponsorship or authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest). Only 58 meta-analyses (31%) had negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses including an author who were employees of the manufacturer of the assessed drug were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses [1/54 (2%) vs. 57/131 (44%); P < 0.001].
Conclusion: There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts. Our findings add a note of caution for meta-analyses with ties to the manufacturers of the assessed products.
Keywords: Antidepressants; Competing interests; Conflicts of interest; Depression; Industry sponsor; Meta-analyses.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Beyond the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies on antidepressant meta-analyses (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 70, 2016, 155-163).J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Oct;78:127-128. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.001. Epub 2016 Mar 14. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016. PMID: 26987506 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Reporting of conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of trials of pharmacological treatments.JAMA. 2011 Mar 9;305(10):1008-17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2011.257. JAMA. 2011. PMID: 21386079 Review.
-
Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study.BMJ Open. 2020 May 11;10(5):e035633. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035633. BMJ Open. 2020. PMID: 32398334 Free PMC article.
-
Sponsorship, antidepressant dose, and outcome in major depressive disorder: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;73(2):e277-87. doi: 10.4088/JCP.11r07204. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012. PMID: 22401489
-
The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. Milbank Q. 2016. PMID: 27620683 Free PMC article.
-
Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: meta-analysis.Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Jan;210(1):16-23. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.179275. Epub 2016 Nov 3. Br J Psychiatry. 2017. PMID: 27810891 Review.
Cited by
-
Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people.Age Ageing. 2017 Sep 1;46(5):722-728. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afx105. Age Ageing. 2017. PMID: 28655142 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Statistically Significant Antidepressant-Placebo Differences on Subjective Symptom-Rating Scales Do Not Prove That the Drugs Work: Effect Size and Method Bias Matter!Front Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 17;9:517. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00517. eCollection 2018. Front Psychiatry. 2018. PMID: 30386270 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Why psychiatry needs an honest dose of gentle medicine.Front Psychiatry. 2023 Apr 21;14:1167910. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1167910. eCollection 2023. Front Psychiatry. 2023. PMID: 37151963 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Methodological Flaws, Conflicts of Interest, and Scientific Fallacies: Implications for the Evaluation of Antidepressants' Efficacy and Harm.Front Psychiatry. 2017 Dec 7;8:275. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00275. eCollection 2017. Front Psychiatry. 2017. PMID: 29270136 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Reporting of financial conflicts of interest by Canadian clinical practice guideline producers: a descriptive study.CMAJ. 2020 Jun 8;192(23):E617-E625. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191737. CMAJ. 2020. PMID: 32538799 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical