Skip to main content
Log in

Publication Bias, with a Focus on Psychiatry: Causes and Solutions

  • Review Article
  • Published:
CNS Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 Drug regulatory agencies can provide valuable unpublished data.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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dickersin K. The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. JAMA. 1990;263:1385–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:638–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chan A-W, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. 2004;171:735–40. doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041086.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Chan A-W, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005;330:753. doi:10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Vedula SS, Goldman PS, Rona IJ, Greene TM, Dickersin K. Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin® litigation. Trials. 2012;13:136. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-136.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303:2058–64. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.651.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Spielmans GI, Parry PI. From evidence-based medicine to marketing-based medicine: evidence from internal industry documents. Bioethical Inquiry. 2010;7:13–29. doi:10.1007/s11673-010-9208-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chan A-W. Bias, spin, and misreporting: time for full access to trial protocols and results. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e230. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050230.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Reyes MM, Panza KE, Martin A, Bloch MH. Time-lag bias in trials of pediatric antidepressants: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;50:63–72.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ioannidis JP. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA. 1998;279:281–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Stern JM, Simes RJ. Publication bias: evidence of delayed publication in a cohort study of clinical research projects. BMJ. 1997;315:640–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Spielmans GI, Biehn TL, Sawrey DL. A case study of salami slicing: pooled analyses of duloxetine for depression. Psychother Psychosom. 2010;79:97–106. doi:10.1159/000270917.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Turner EH (2009) Multiple publication of positive vs. negative trial results in review articles: influence on apparent “weight of the evidence.” In: Sixth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, 2009 Sept 10–12, Vancouver, BC, Canada. http://www.peerreviewcongress.org/abstracts_2009.html#58.

  14. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramèr MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 2004;291:974–80. doi:10.1001/jama.291.8.974.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Melander H. Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ. 2003;326:1171–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ben-Shlomo Y, Smith GD. “Place of publication” bias? BMJ. 1994;309:274.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Katerndahl DA. Citation bias: supporting your case in the extreme. Fam Pract Res J. 1994;14:107–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Jannot A-S, Agoritsas T, Gayet-Ageron A, Perneger TV. Citation bias favoring statistically significant studies was present in medical research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66:296–301. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chapman S, Ragg M, McGeechan K. Citation bias in reported smoking prevalence in people with schizophrenia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2009;43:277–82. doi:10.1080/00048670802653372.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Carroll L. Alice’s adventures in wonderland. London: Macmillan; 1865.

  21. Martinez B. Spitzer charges Glaxo concealed Paxil data. Wall Str J 2004 June 3.

  22. Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gøtzsche PC, O’Neill RT, Altman DG, et al. Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:781–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Fanelli D. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries. Scientometrics. 2012;90(3):891–904.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:252–60.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004;363:1341–5. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16043-1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Keller MB, Ryan ND, Strober M, Klein RG, Kutcher SP, et al. Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2001;40:762–72. doi:10.1097/00004583-200107000-00010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Jureidini J, Tonkin A. Paroxetine in major depression. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2003;42:514 (author reply 514–5). doi:10.1097/01.CHI.0000046825.95464.DA.

  28. Jureidini J, McHenry L, Mansfield P. Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of study 329. Int J Risk Saf Med. 2008;20:73–81.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Eyding D, Lelgemann M, Grouven U, Härter M, Kromp M, et al. Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials. BMJ. 2010;341:c4737.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Turner EH. Reboxetine in depression. All the relevant data? BMJ. 2010;341:c6487.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Howland RH. Publication bias and outcome reporting bias: agomelatine as a case example. J Psychosoc Nurs Ment Health Serv. 2011;49:11–4. doi:10.3928/02793695-20110809-01.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, Jetzinger E, Kissling W, et al. Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163:185–94. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.163.2.185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Turner EH, Knoepflmacher D, Shapley L. Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration Database. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001189. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001189. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001189.

  34. Tsai A, Rosenlicht N, Jureidini J, Parry P. Aripiprazole in the maintenance treatment of bipolar disorder: a critical review of the evidence and its dissemination into the scientific literature. PLoS Med, 2011;8:e1000434. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000434.

  35. Nassir Ghaemi S, Shirzadi AA, Filkowski M. Publication bias and the pharmaceutical industry: the case of lamotrigine in bipolar disorder. Medscape J Med. 2008;10:211.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ghaemi SN. The failure to know what isn’t known: negative publication bias with lamotrigine and a glimpse inside peer review. Evid Based Ment Health. 2009;12:65–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Calabrese JR, Bowden CL, Sachs GS, Ascher JA, Monaghan E, et al. A double-blind placebo-controlled study of lamotrigine monotherapy in outpatients with bipolar I depression. Lamictal 602 Study Group. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60:79–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Vedula SS, Li T, Dickersin K. Differences in reporting of analyses in internal company documents versus published trial reports: comparisons in industry-sponsored trials in off-label uses of gabapentin. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001378. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001378. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001378.

  39. Chace MJ, Zhang F, Fullerton CA, Huskamp HA, Gilden D, et al. Intended and unintended consequences of the gabapentin off-label marketing lawsuit among patients with bipolar disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2012;73:1388–94. doi:10.4088/JCP.12m07794.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Fullerton CA, Busch AB, Frank RG. The rise and fall of gabapentin for bipolar disorder: a case study on off-label pharmaceutical diffusion. Med Care. 2010;48:372–9. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181ca404e.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K. Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1963–71. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0906126.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Landefeld CS, Steinman MA. The Neurontin legacy—marketing through misinformation and manipulation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:103–6. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0808659.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren M-M, Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:284–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Carrasco M, Volkmar FR, Bloch MH. Pharmacologic treatment of repetitive behaviors in autism spectrum disorders: evidence of publication bias. Pediatrics. 2012;129:e1301–10. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-3285.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schüler Y-B, Kölsch H, et al. Reporting bias in medical research—a narrative review. Trials. 2010;11:37. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-37.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med. 2008;5:e217 (discussion e217). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0050217.

  47. Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L. Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ. 2012;344:d7202. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Yong E. Replication studies: bad copy. Nature. 2012;485:298–300. doi:10.1038/485298a.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Angell M. The truth about the drug companies: how they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House; 2005.

  50. Moynihan R. Key opinion leaders: independent experts or drug representatives in disguise? BMJ. 2008;336:1402–3. doi:10.1136/bmj.39575.675787.651.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kern DG. Confidentiality agreements and scientific independence. Med Decis Making. 1998;18:239.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Rochon PA, Sekeres M, Hoey J, Lexchin J, Ferris LE, et al. Investigator experiences with financial conflicts of interest in clinical trials. Trials. 2011;12:9. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-12-9.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Safer DJ. Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190:583–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2.

  55. Dickersin K, Min YI. NIH clinical trials and publication bias. Online J Curr Clin Trials 1993;50.

  56. Ross JS, Tse T, Zarin DA, Xu H, Zhou L, et al. Publication of NIH funded trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:d7292. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7292.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Matthews GA, Dumville JC, Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ. Retrospective cohort study highlighted outcome reporting bias in UK publicly funded trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:1317–24. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.013.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Fanelli D. Do pressures to publish increase scientists’ bias? An empirical support from US States Data. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e10271. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010271. http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0010271.

  59. Blank H, Musch J, Pohl R. Hindsight bias: on being wise after the event. Soc Cognit. 2007;25:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kerr N. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Person Soc Psychol Rev. 1998;2:196.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Moore A. Prose and principle: getting your message across: more than detailed cataloguing of research findings, emphasis of principles within a narrative engages the readers of reviews. Bioessays. 2011;33:85. doi:10.1002/bies.201190000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Bacon F. In: Jardine L, Silverthorne M, editors. The new organon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000.

  63. Makhinson M. Biases in medication prescribing: the case of second-generation antipsychotics. J Psychiatr Pract. 2010;16:15–21. doi:10.1097/01.pra.0000367774.11260.e4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990;263:1405–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Lariviere V, Gingras Y. The impact factor’s Matthew effect: a natural experiment in bibliometrics. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2010;61:424–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Emerson GB, Warme WJ, Wolf FM, Heckman JD, Brand RA, et al. Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170:1934–9. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.406.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Siontis KC, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP. Magnitude of effects in clinical trials published in high-impact general medical journals. Int J Epidemiol. 2011;40:1280–91. doi:10.1093/ije/dyr095.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Horton R. The refiguration of medical thought. Lancet. 2000;356:2–4. http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-information-for-authors/article-types-manuscript-requirements.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Evangelou E, Siontis KC, Pfeiffer T, Ioannidis JPA. Perceived information gain from randomized trials correlates with publication in high-impact factor journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1274–81. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.009.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Lundh A, Barbateskovic M, Hróbjartsson A, Gøtzsche P. Conflicts of interest at medical journals: the influence of industry-supported randomised trials on journal impact factors and revenue—cohort study. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000354EP.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Huque MF, Sankoh AJ. A reviewer’s perspective on multiple endpoint issues in clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 1997;7:545–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Austin PC, Mamdani MM, Juurlink DN, Hux JE. Testing multiple statistical hypotheses resulted in spurious associations: a study of astrological signs and health. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:964–9. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.01.012.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Kubler-Ross E. On death and dying. New York: Scribner; 2011.

  75. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23:56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Bagby RM. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161:2163–77. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Williams JB. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1988;45:742–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Nierenberg AA, Alpert JE, Gardner-Schuster EE, Seay S, Mischoulon D. Vagus nerve stimulation: 2-year outcomes for bipolar versus unipolar treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2008;64:455–60. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.04.036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. McIntyre R, Kennedy S, Bagby RM, Bakish D. Assessing full remission. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2002;27:235–9.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Bech P, Allerup P, Gram LF, Reisby N, Rosenberg R, et al. The Hamilton depression scale. Evaluation of objectivity using logistic models. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1981;63:290–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. O’Sullivan RL, Fava M, Agustin C, Baer L, Rosenbaum JF. Sensitivity of the six-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1997;95:379–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Simmons JP, Nelson LD, Simonsohn U. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 2011;22:1359–66. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Frank E, Prien RF, Jarrett RB, Keller MB, Kupfer DJ, et al. Conceptualization and rationale for consensus definitions of terms in major depressive disorder. Remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;48:851–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Zimmerman M, Chelminski I, Posternak M. A review of studies of the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale in controls: implications for the definition of remission in treatment studies of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;19:1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Fava M, Davidson KG. Definition and epidemiology of treatment-resistant depression. Psychiatr Clin North Am. 1996;19:179–200.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Nierenberg AA, DeCecco LM. Definitions of antidepressant treatment response, remission, nonresponse, partial response, and other relevant outcomes: a focus on treatment-resistant depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62(Suppl 16):5–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Lenzer J. Unreported cholesterol drug data released by company. BMJ. 2008;336:180–1. doi:10.1136/bmj.39468.610775.DB.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Turner E. Correction/clarification about FDA review documents. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e422 (author reply e423). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020422.

  90. Turner EH. A taxpayer-funded clinical trials registry and results database. PLoS Med. 2004;1:e60. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0010060.

  91. Siddiqui O, Hung HMJ, O’Neill R. MMRM vs. LOCF: a comprehensive comparison based on simulation study and 25 NDA datasets. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:227–46. doi:10.1080/10543400802609797.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Office of New Drugs. Good review practice: attachment A: annotated clinical review template. 2010. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ManualofPoliciesProcedures/UCM236903.pdf.

  93. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration. Guideline for industry, structure and content of clinical study reports—ICH E3. 1996. p. 25–35. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm078749.pdf.

  94. Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database—update and key issues. N Engl J Med. 2011;364:852–60. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1012065.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. US Food and Drug Administration. Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA). 1997. p. 2295. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ115/html/PLAW-105publ115.htm.

  96. Zarin DA, Tse T, Ide NC. Trial Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2779–87. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa053234.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Topol EJ. Failing the public health—rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1707–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. JAMA. 2004;292:1363–4. doi:10.1001/jama.292.11.1363.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Dickersin K, Rennie D. The evolution of trial registries and their use to assess the clinical trial enterprise. JAMA. 2012;307:1861–4. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.4230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Viergever RF, Ghersi D. The quality of registration of clinical trials. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e14701. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014701.t003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Dodd C. Fair access to Clinical Trials Act (FACT). 2005. http://olpa.od.nih.gov/tracking/109/senate_bills/session1/s-470.asp.

  102. Dingell J. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA). 2007. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf.

  103. Prayle AP, Hurley MN, Smyth AR. Compliance with mandatory reporting of clinical trial results on ClinicalTrials.gov: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2012;344:d7373. doi:10.1136/bmj.d7373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Zarin DA, Tse T. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials. Science. 2008;319:1340–2. doi:10.1126/science.1153632.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  105. Turner EH. Closing a loophole in the FDA Amendments Act. Science. 2008;322:44–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Tse T, Williams RJ, Zarin DA. Reporting “basic results” in ClinicalTrials.gov. Chest. 2009;136:295–303. doi:10.1378/chest.08-3022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Veitch E (2012) Silent takedown of the pharma trials database…and more. Speaking of Medicine. 2012 March 23. http://blogs.plos.org/speakingofmedicine/2012/03/23/silent-takedown-of-the-pharma-trials-database%E2%80%A6and-more/ (accessed 22 Nov 2012).

  108. Mansi BA, Clark J, David FS, Gesell TM, Glasser S, et al. Ten recommendations for closing the credibility gap in reporting industry-sponsored clinical research: a joint journal and pharmaceutical industry perspective. Mayo Clin Proc. 2012;87:424–9. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.02.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. GlaxoSmithKline (2013) GSK announces further initiatives to advance openness and collaboration to help tackle global health challenges. http://www.gsk.com/media/press-releases/2012/GSK-announces-further-initiatives-to-tackle-global-health-challenges.html.

  110. GlaxoSmithKline (2013) GSK announces support for AllTrials campaign for clinical data transparency. http://www.gsk.com/media/press-releases/2013/GSK-announces-support-forAll-Trials-campaign-for-clinical-data-transparency.html.

  111. Kmietowicz Z. Roche says it will not relinquish control over access to clinical trial data. BMJ. 2013;346.

  112. Asamoah AK, Sharfstein JM. Transparency at the Food and Drug Administration. N Engl J Med. 2010:362(25):2341-3;. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1005202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Melander H, Salmonson T, Abadie E, van Zwieten-Boot B. A regulatory Apologia—a review of placebo-controlled studies in regulatory submissions of new-generation antidepressants. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2008;18:623–7. doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2008.06.003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Henkel V, Seemüller F, Obermeier M, Adli M, Bauer M, et al. Relationship between baseline severity of depression and antidepressant treatment outcome. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2011;44:27–32. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1267177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Henkel V, Casaulta F, Seemüller F, Krähenbühl S, Obermeier M, et al. Study design features affecting outcome in antidepressant trials. J Affect Disord. 2012;141:160–7. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen AW. Opening up data at the European Medicines Agency. BMJ. 2011;342:d2686.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Eichler H-G, Abadie E, Breckenridge A, Leufkens H, Rasi G. Open clinical trial data for all? A view from regulators. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001202. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001202.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. European Medicines Agency EMEA. Workshop on access to clinical-trial data and transparency kicks off process towards proactive publication of data. emeaeuropaeu. 2012. http://www.emea.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/2012/11/news_detail_001662.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1. accessed 28 Nov 2012.

  119. Wieseler B, McGauran N, Kerekes MF, Kaiser T. Access to regulatory data from the European Medicines Agency: the times they are a-changing. Syst Rev. 2012;1:50. doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7477.1253.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. International Committee of Journal Editors ICMJE. Obligation to publish negative studies. http://www.icmje.org/publishing_1negative.html. Accessed on 10 April 2013.

  121. Joober R, Schmitz N, Annable L, Boksa P. Publication bias: what are the challenges and can they be overcome? J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2012;37:149–52. doi:10.1503/jpn.120065.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Sridharan L, Greenland P. Editorial policies and publication bias: the importance of negative studies. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:1022–3. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Mirkin JN, Bach PB. Outcome-blinded peer review. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:1213–4 (author reply 1214). doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.56.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Colom F, Vieta E. The need for publishing the silent evidence from negative trials. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2011;123:91–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG, Mann H, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Senn S. Misunderstanding publication bias: editors are not blameless after all. F1000 Res. 2012. doi:10.3410/f1000research.1-59.v1.

  128. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Mathieu S, Chan A-W, Ravaud P. Use of trial register information during the peer review process. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e59910. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0059910. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0059910.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Portions of this paper have been presented by the author in teaching and other oral presentations. Robert Tell provided comments on the manuscript. The writing of this review was not funded. From 1998 to 2001, the author served as a medical reviewer at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Subsequently, but ending in 2005, he provided outside consulting to Bristol–Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and GlaxoSmithKline; from 2004 to 2005, he was on the speaker’s bureaus of Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Bristol–Myers Squibb.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erick H. Turner.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Turner, E.H. Publication Bias, with a Focus on Psychiatry: Causes and Solutions. CNS Drugs 27, 457–468 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-013-0067-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40263-013-0067-9

Keywords

Navigation