+ Site Statistics
References:
54,258,434
Abstracts:
29,560,870
PMIDs:
28,072,757
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions



Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions



Cns Drugs 27(6): 457-468



Publication bias undermines the integrity of the evidence base by inflating apparent drug efficacy and minimizing drug harms, thus skewing the risk-benefit ratio. This paper reviews the topic of publication bias with a focus on drugs prescribed for psychiatric conditions, especially depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism. Publication bias is pervasive; although psychiatry/psychology may be the most seriously afflicted field, it occurs throughout medicine and science. Responsibility lies with various parties (authors as well as journals, academia as well as industry), so the motives appear to extend beyond the financial interests of drug companies. The desire for success, in combination with cognitive biases, can also influence academic authors and journals. Amid the flood of new medical information coming out each day, the attention of the news media and academic community is more likely to be captured by studies whose results are positive or newsworthy. In the peer review system, a fundamental flaw arises from the fact that authors usually write manuscripts after they know the results. This allows hindsight and other biases to come into play, so data can be "tortured until they confess" (a detailed example is given). If a "publishable" result cannot be achieved, non-publication remains an option. To address publication bias, various measures have been undertaken, including registries of clinical trials. Drug regulatory agencies can provide valuable unpublished data. It is suggested that journals borrow from the FDA review model. Because the significance of study results biases reviewers, results should be excluded from review until after a preliminary judgment of study scientific quality has been rendered, based on the original study protocol. Protocol publication can further enhance the credibility of the published literature.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 055285051

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23696308

DOI: 10.1007/s40263-013-0067-9


Related references

Publication bias and the integrity of psychiatry research. Psychological Medicine 30(2): 253-258, 2000

The causes, consequences and detection of publication bias in psychiatry. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 102(4): 241-249, 2000

Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: mandatory publication of data may help. Bmj 331(7517): 638-638, 2005

Review of publication bias in studies on publication bias: studies on publication bias are probably susceptible to the bias they study. Bmj 331(7517): 637-638, 2005

The specter of publication bias: adjustment for publication bias in the evidence on cardiac death associated with passive smoking in nonsmoking women. International Journal of Cardiology 149(3): 388-389, 2011

Examining publication bias-a simulation-based evaluation of statistical tests on publication bias. Peerj 5: E4115, 2017

Publication bias in the anesthesiology literature: shifting the focus from the "positive" to the "truth". Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 63(6): 658-663, 2017

Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia. European Psychiatry 20(8): 550-553, 2005

Systematic review of publication bias in studies on publication bias. Bmj 331(7514): 433-434, 2005

Publication bias in laboratory animal research: a survey on magnitude, drivers, consequences and potential solutions. Plos One 7(9): E43404, 2013

Associations with publication and assessing publication bias in dementia diagnostic test accuracy studies. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 30(12): 1250-1256, 2016

Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. Bmj 315(7109): 640-645, 1997

Time to full publication of studies of anticancer drugs for breast cancer, and the potential for publication bias. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 26(1): 110-116, 2010

Non-publication and publication bias in reproductive medicine: a cohort analysis. Human Reproduction 32(8): 1658-1666, 2018

The publication process itself was the major cause of publication bias in genetic epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 59(12): 1312-1318, 2006