Jump to main content
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Search
Search
Main menu
Environmental Topics
Laws & Regulations
About EPA
Health & Environmental Research Online (HERO)
Contact Us
Print
Feedback
Export to File
Search:
This record has one attached file:
Add More Files
Attach File(s):
Display Name for File*:
Save
Citation
Tags
HERO ID
93178
Reference Type
Journal Article
Title
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy
Author(s)
Turner, EH; Matthews, AM; Linardatos, E; Tell, RA; Rosenthal, R
Year
2008
Is Peer Reviewed?
1
Journal
New England Journal of Medicine
ISSN:
0028-4793
EISSN:
1533-4406
Volume
358
Issue
3
Page Numbers
252-260
Language
English
PMID
18199864
DOI
10.1056/NEJMsa065779
Web of Science Id
WOS:000252375600006
Abstract
BACKGROUND 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.
METHODS 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.
RESULTS 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.
CONCLUSIONS 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.
Tags
NAAQS
•
ISA-NOx (2016)
2008 Final
Home
Learn about HERO
Using HERO
Search HERO
Projects in HERO
Risk Assessment
Transparency & Integrity