Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy
- 17 January 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Massachusetts Medical Society in The New England Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 358 (3), 252-260
- https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmsa065779
Abstract
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.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- The case of the misleading funnel plotBMJ, 2006
- Selective Reporting Biases in Cancer Prognostic Factor StudiesJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2005
- Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authorsBMJ, 2005
- A Taxpayer-Funded Clinical Trials Registry and Results DatabasePLoS Medicine, 2004
- Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health ResearchCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2004
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004
- Evidence b(i)ased medicine--selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applicationsBMJ, 2003
- Pharmacoeconomic Evaluation in the Real WorldPharmacoEconomics, 1999
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986
- Estimation of effect size from a series of independent experiments.Psychological Bulletin, 1982