Misreporting of Results of Research in Psychiatry

Author(s):  
Jana Bowcut ◽  
Linda Levi ◽  
Ortal Livnah ◽  
Joseph S Ross ◽  
Michael Knable ◽  
...  

Abstract Few studies address publication and outcome reporting biases of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in psychiatry. The objective of this study was to determine publication and outcome reporting bias in RCTs funded by the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI), a U.S. based, non-profit organization funding RCTs in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. We identified all RCTs (n = 280) funded by SMRI between 2000 and 2011, and using non-public, final study reports and published manuscripts, we classified the results as positive or negative in terms of the drug compared to placebo. Design, outcome measures and statistical methods specified in the original protocol were compared to the published manuscript. Of 280 RCTs funded by SMRI between 2000 and 2011, at the time of this writing, three RCTs were ongoing and 39 were not performed. Among the 238 completed RCTs, 86 (36.1%) reported positive and 152 (63.9%) reported negative results: 86% (74/86) of those with positive findings were published in contrast to 53% (80/152) of those with negative findings (P < .001). In 70% of the manuscripts published, there were major discrepancies between the published manuscript and the original RCT protocol (change in the primary outcome measure or statistics, change in a number of patient groups, 25% or more reduction in sample size). We conclude that publication bias and outcome reporting bias is common in papers reporting RCTs in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. These data have major implications regarding the validity of the reports of clinical trials published in the literature.

Biostatistics ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 370-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Copas ◽  
K. Dwan ◽  
J. Kirkham ◽  
P. Williamson

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. e0180986 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benjamin Howard ◽  
Jared T. Scott ◽  
Mark Blubaugh ◽  
Brie Roepke ◽  
Caleb Scheckel ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 889-903 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Copas ◽  
Anthony Marson ◽  
Paula Williamson ◽  
Jamie Kirkham

Outcome reporting bias occurs when outcomes in research studies are selectively reported, the selection being influenced by the study results. For benefit outcomes, we have shown how risk assessments using the Outcome Reporting Bias in Trials risk classification scale can be used to calculate bias-adjusted treatment effect estimates. This paper presents a new and simpler version of the benefits method, and shows how it can be extended to cover the partial reporting and non-reporting of harm outcomes. Our motivating example is a Cochrane systematic review of 12 studies of Topiramate add-on therapy for drug-resistant partial epilepsy. Bias adjustments for partially reported or unreported outcomes suggest that the review has overestimated the benefits and underestimated the harms of the test treatment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document