TY - JOUR
T1 - Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry
T2 - Causes and solutions
AU - Turner, Erick H.
N1 - Funding Information:
What can authors and investigators do? Research funded by the United States National Institutes of Health must be freely and publicly disseminated in accordance with the NIH Public Access Policy (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ policy.htm). When writing protocols, investigators should clearly distinguish primary from secondary (exploratory) outcomes [72]. The outcomes should be specific and detailed enough that a statistically savvy colleague with access to the raw data can replicate the analyses and P values. Some journals consider protocols for review (e.g., The Lancet) or publication (e.g., Trials, Systematic Reviews, F1000 journals). The time invested in doing so should pay off in terms of increased verifiability, credibility, and the impact of one’s final publication.
PY - 2013/6
Y1 - 2013/6
N2 - 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 Drug regulatory agencies can provide valuable unpublished data.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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879317689&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879317689&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s40263-013-0067-9
DO - 10.1007/s40263-013-0067-9
M3 - Review article
C2 - 23696308
AN - SCOPUS:84879317689
SN - 1172-7047
VL - 27
SP - 457
EP - 468
JO - CNS drugs
JF - CNS drugs
IS - 6
ER -