Abstract

Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-based medicine, yet a growing body of research shows that this problem is widespread. Efficacy data from drug regulatory agencies, e.g., the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), can serve as a benchmark or control against which data in journal articles can be checked. Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to which it inflates apparent drug efficacy. FDA Drug Approval Packages for eight second-generation antipsychotics-aripiprazole, iloperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, risperidone long-acting injection (risperidone LAI), and ziprasidone--were used to identify a cohort of 24 FDA-registered premarketing trials. The results of these trials according to the FDA were compared with the results conveyed in corresponding journal articles. The relationship between study outcome and publication status was examined, and effect sizes derived from the two data sources were compared. Among the 24 FDA-registered trials, four (17%) were unpublished. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug had a statistical advantage over placebo, and one showed the study drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator. Among the 20 published trials, the five that were not positive, according to the FDA, showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias. However, the association between trial outcome and publication status did not reach statistical significance. Further, the apparent increase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically significant. On the other hand, the effect size for unpublished trials (0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.39) was less than half that for the published trials (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.54), a difference that was significant. The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently. Without increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions between effective and ineffective drugs.

Highlights

  • Evidence-based medicine is valuable only to the extent that the available evidence is complete and unbiased

  • The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently

  • The effect sizes plotted are based on results that are published, and one cannot be sure whether and to what extent such results have been affected by outcome reporting bias

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Evidence-based medicine is valuable only to the extent that the available evidence is complete and unbiased. Despite ample evidence for the existence of publication bias, there is little evidence of its quantitative impact on the apparent efficacy of most drugs. The effect sizes plotted are based on results that are published, and one cannot be sure whether and to what extent such results have been affected by outcome reporting bias. Clinicians used their own experience to make such decisions Nowadays, they rely on evidence-based medicine—the systematic review and appraisal of trials, studies that investigate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions in patients. Evidence-based medicine can guide clinicians, only if all the results from clinical trials are published in an unbiased manner. Published trials can be subject to outcome reporting bias—the publication may only include those trial outcomes that support the use of the new treatment rather than presenting all the available data

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.