Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions

Interleukin-receptor antagonist and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for the primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases

BACKGROUND

Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ACVD) is worsened by chronic inflammatory diseases. Interleukin receptor antagonists (IL-RAs) and tumour necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) inhibitors have been studied to see if they can prevent cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical benefits and harms of IL-RAs and TNF inhibitors in the primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Heart Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE (including In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations), Ovid Embase, EBSCO CINAHL plus, and clinical trial registries for ongoing and unpublished studies were searched in February 2024. The reference lists of relevant studies, reviews, meta-analyses and health technology reports were searched to identify additional studies. No limitations on language, date of publication or study type were set.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs that recruited people with and without pre-existing ACVD, comparing IL-RAs or TNF inhibitors versus placebo or usual care, were selected. The primary outcomes considered were all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two or more review authors, working independently at each step, selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and used GRADE to judge the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 58 RCTs (22,053 participants; 21,308 analysed), comparing medication efficacy with placebo or usual care. Thirty-four trials focused on primary prevention and 24 on secondary prevention. The interventions included IL-1 RAs (anakinra, canakinumab), IL-6 RA (tocilizumab), TNF-inhibitors (etanercept, infliximab) compared with placebo or usual care. The certainty of evidence was low to very low due to biases and imprecision; all trials had a high risk of bias. Primary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality(RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.58, 1 trial), myocardial infarction (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.04 to 12.48, I² = 39%, 2 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.11, I² = 0%, 2 trials), stroke (RR 2.42, 95% CI 0.12 to 50.15; 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.22, I² = 54%, 3 trials), or infection (rate ratio 0.84, 95% 0.55 to 1.29, I² = 0%, 4 trials). Evidence is very uncertain about whether anakinra and cankinumab may reduce heart failure (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.94, I² = 0%, 3 trials). Peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was not reported as an outcome. IL-6 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.74, I² = 30%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.04 to1.68, I² = 0%, 3 trials), heart failure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.11 to 9.63, I² = 0%, 2 trials), PVD (RR 2.94, 95% CI 0.12 to 71.47, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.14, 1 trial), or any infection (rate ratio 1.10, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.37, I2 = 18%, 5 trials). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.23, I² = 33%, 5 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.99, I² = 10%, 3 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 2.61, 95% CI 0.11 to 62.26, 1 trial), stroke (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.80, I² = 0%; 3 trials), heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.76, 1 trial). Adverse events may increase (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.25, I² = 51%, 13 trials). No trial assessed unstable angina or PVD. Secondary prevention: IL-1 RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.06, I² = 0%, 8 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.19, I² = 0%, 3 trials), PVD (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.19 to 3.73, I² = 38%, 3 trials), stroke (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.2, I² = 0%; 7 trials), heart failure (RR 0.91, 95% 0.5 to 1.65, I² = 0%; 7 trials), or adverse events (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.09, I² = 3%, 4 trials). There may be little to no difference between the groups in myocardial infarction (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.0.75 to 1.04, I² = 0%, 6 trials). IL6-RAs The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.96, I² = 0%, 2 trials), myocardial infarction (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.04, I² = 45%, 3 trials), unstable angina (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.02, 1 trial), stroke (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07 to 16.25, 1 trial), adverse events (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, I² = 0%, 2 trials), or any infection (rate ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.36, I² = 0%, 4 trials). No trial assessed PVD or heart failure. TNF inhibitors The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of the intervention on all-cause mortality (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.95, I² = 47%, 5 trials), heart failure (RR 0.92, 95% 0.75 to 1.14, I² = 0%, 4 trials), or adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.56, I² = 32%, 2 trials). No trial assessed myocardial infarction, unstable angina, PVD or stroke. Adverse events may be underestimated and benefits inflated due to inadequate reporting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This Cochrane review assessed the benefits and harms of using interleukin-receptor antagonists and tumour necrosis factor inhibitors for primary and secondary prevention of atherosclerotic diseases compared with placebo or usual care. However, the evidence for the predetermined outcomes was deemed low or very low certainty, so there is still a need to determine whether these interventions provide clinical benefits or cause harm from this perspective. In summary, the different biases and imprecision in the included studies limit their external validity and represent a limitation to determining the effectiveness of the intervention for both primary and secondary prevention of ACVD.

The role of the differential outcomes procedure and schizotypy in the recognition of dynamic facial expressions of emotions

Emotional facial expression recognition is a key ability for adequate social functioning. The current study aims to test if the differential outcomes procedure (DOP) may improve the recognition of dynamic facial expressions of emotions and to further explore whether schizotypal personality traits may have any effect on performance. 183 undergraduate students completed a task where a face morphed from a neutral expression to one of the six basic emotions at full intensity over 10 s. Participants had to press spacebar as soon as they identified the emotion and choose which had appeared. In the first block, participants received no outcomes. In the second block, a group received specific outcomes associated to each emotion (DOP group), while another group received non-differential outcomes after correctly responding (NOP group). Employing generalized linear models (GLMs) and Bayesian inference we estimated different parameters to answer our research goals. Schizotypal personality traits did not seem to affect dynamic emotional facial expression recognition. Participants of the DOP group were less likely to respond incorrectly to faces showing Fear and Surprise at fewer intensity levels. This may suggest that the DOP could lead to better identification of the main features that differentiate each facial expression of emotion.

Evidence-based severity assessment of the forced swim test in the rat

The forced swim test (FST) is a traditional assay, which has been used for more than 40 years to assess antidepressant effects of novel drug candidates. In recent years, a debate about the test has focused on the assumption that the FST is highly aversive and burdening for the animals because of the earlier anthropomorphic interpretation and designation as a "behavioral despair test". The Directive 2010/63/EU and the German Animal Welfare law require a prospective severity classification of the planned experimental procedures. Still, an objective examination of the animals' burden in this test has not been performed yet. To fill this gap, we conducted an evidence-based severity assessment of the forced swim test in rats according to a 'standard protocol' with a water temperature of 25°C. We examined parameters representing the physiological and the affective state, and natural as well as locomotion-associated behaviors in three separate experiments to reflect as many dimensions as possible of the animal's condition in the test. Hypothermia was the only effect observed in all animals exposed to the FST when using this standard protocol. Additional adverse effects on body weight, food consumption, and fecal corticosterone metabolite concentrations occurred in response to administration of the antidepressant imipramine, which is frequently used as positive control when testing for antidepressant effects of new substances. We conclude that this version of the FST itself is less severe for the animals than assumed, and we suggest a severity classification of 'moderate' because of the acute and short-lasting effects of hypothermia. To refine the FST according to the 3Rs, we encourage confirming the predictive validity in warmer water temperatures to allow the rats to maintain physiological body temperature.

Historical developments, hotspots, and trends in tardive dyskinesia research: a scientometric analysis of 54 years of publications

Background

Since being recognized as an important drug-induced clinical entity during the 1960s, tardive dyskinesia (TD) has generated an extensive body of research seeking to understand its clinical characteristics, epidemiology, pathophysiology and management. Modern scientometric approaches allow interactive visualization of large bodies of literature to identify trends and hotspots within knowledge domains. This study thus aimed to provide a comprehensive scientometric review of the TD literature.

Methods

Web of Science was searched for articles, reviews, editorials and letters with the term "tardive dyskinesia" in the title, abstract, or keywords through 12/31/2021. A total of 5,228 publications and 182,052 citations were included. Annual research output, prominent research areas, authors, affiliations and countries were summarized. VOSViewer and CiteSpace were used for bibliometric mapping and co-citation analysis. Structural and temporal metrics were used to identify key publications in the network.

Results

TD-related publications peaked in the 1990s, gradually declined after 2004, and showed a further small increase after 2015. The most prolific authors were Kane JM, Lieberman JA, and Jeste DV overall (1968-2021), and Zhang XY, Correll CU and Remington G in the last decade (2012-2021). The most prolific journal was the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry overall, and the Journal of Psychopharmacology in the last decade. Knowledge clusters in the 1960-1970s dealt with clinical and pharmacological characterization of TD. In the 1980s, epidemiology, clinical TD assessment, cognitive dysfunction and animal models predominated. During the 1990s, research diverged into pathophysiological studies, especially oxidative stress, and clinical trials on atypical antipsychotics, with a focus on clozapine and bipolar disorder. In the 1990-2000s, pharmacogenetics emerged. More recent clusters include serotonergic receptors, dopamine-supersensitivity psychosis, primary motor abnormalities of schizophrenia, epidemiology/meta-analyses, and advances in TD treatment, particularly vesicular monoamine transporter-2 inhibitors since 2017.

Conclusion

This scientometric review visualized the evolution of scientific knowledge on TD over more than five decades. These findings will be useful for researchers to find relevant literature when writing scientific articles, choosing appropriate journals, finding collaborators or mentors for research, and to understand the historical developments and emerging trends in TD research.

Operationalizing anthropological theory: four techniques to simplify networks of co-occurring ethnographic codes

The use of data and algorithms in the social sciences allows for exciting progress, but also poses epistemological challenges. Operations that appear innocent and purely technical may profoundly influence final results. Researchers working with data can make their process less arbitrary and more accountable by making theoretically grounded methodological choices. We apply this approach to the problem of simplifying networks representing ethnographic corpora, in the interest of visual interpretation. Network nodes represent ethnographic codes, and their edges the co-occurrence of codes in a corpus. We introduce and discuss four techniques to simplify such networks and facilitate visual analysis. We show how the mathematical characteristics of each one are aligned with an identifiable approach in sociology or anthropology: structuralism and post-structuralism; identifying the central concepts in a discourse; and discovering hegemonic and counter-hegemonic clusters of meaning. We then provide an example of how the four techniques complement each other in ethnographic analysis.

Sucrose Preference Test as a Measure of Anhedonic Behavior in a Chronic Unpredictable Mild Stress Model of Depression: Outstanding Issues

Despite numerous studies on the neurobiology of depression, the etiological and pathophysiological mechanisms of this disorder remain poorly understood. A large number of animal models and tests to evaluate depressive-like behavior have been developed. Chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS) is the most common and frequently used model of depression, and the sucrose preference test (SPT) is one of the most common tests for assessing anhedonia. However, not all laboratories can reproduce the main effects of CUMS, especially when this refers to a decrease in sucrose preference. It is also unknown how the state of anhedonia, assessed by the SPT, relates to the state of anhedonia in patients with depression. We analyzed the literature available in the PubMed database using keywords relevant to the topic of this narrative review. We hypothesize that the poor reproducibility of the CUMS model may be due to differences in sucrose consumption, which may be influenced by such factors as differences in sucrose preference concentration threshold, water and food deprivation, and differences in animals’ susceptibility to stress. We also believe that comparisons between animal and human states of anhedonia should be made with caution because there are many inconsistencies between the two, including in assessment methods. We also tried to offer some recommendations that should improve the reproducibility of the CUMS model and provide a framework for future research.

Measurement challenges and causes of incomplete results reporting of biomedical animal studies: Results from an interview study

Background

Existing evidence indicates that a significant amount of biomedical research involving animals remains unpublished. At the same time, we lack standards for measuring the extent of results reporting in animal research. Publication rates may vary significantly depending on the level of measurement such as an entire animal study, individual experiments within a study, or the number of animals used.

Methods

Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 18 experts and qualitative content analysis, we investigated challenges and opportunities for the measurement of incomplete reporting of biomedical animal research with specific reference to the German situation. We further investigate causes of incomplete reporting.

Results

The in-depth expert interviews revealed several reasons for why incomplete reporting in animal research is difficult to measure at all levels under the current circumstances. While precise quantification based on regulatory approval documentation is feasible at the level of entire studies, measuring incomplete reporting at the more individual experiment and animal levels presents formidable challenges. Expert-interviews further identified six drivers of incomplete reporting of results in animal research. Four of these are well documented in other fields of research: a lack of incentives to report non-positive results, pressures to ‘deliver’ positive results, perceptions that some data do not add value, and commercial pressures. The fifth driver, reputational concerns, appears to be far more salient in animal research than in human clinical trials. The final driver, socio-political pressures, may be unique to the field.

Discussion

Stakeholders in animal research should collaborate to develop a clear conceptualisation of complete reporting in animal research, facilitate valid measurements of the phenomenon, and develop incentives and rewards to overcome the causes for incomplete reporting.

Selective outcome reporting across psychopharmacotherapy randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Selective reporting impairs the valid interpretation of trials and leads to bias with regards to the clinical evidence. We aimed to examine factors associated with selective reporting in psychopharmacotherapy trials and thus enable solutions to prevent such selective reporting in the future.

METHODS

We retrieved all registry records of trials investigating medication for depressive, bipolar and psychotic disorders. Multivariate logistic regression was performed with selective reporting as outcome, and funding source, psychiatric disorder, year of study start date, participating centers, and anticipated sample size as explanatory variables, after testing for multicollinearity. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) were calculated. Two-sided Fisher exact test was used to compare the proportions of newly added positive primary outcomes with the proportions of positive results in the overall group of primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 151 included trials (N = 94,303 participants), 21 (14%) showed irregularities between registered and published primary outcomes. Higher odds of such irregularities were associated with non-industry-funded RCTs (AOR 5.3; p = 0.014) and trials investigating major depressive disorder (AOR 12.7; p = 0.024) or schizophrenia (AOR 14.5; p = 0.016; Table 1).

CONCLUSION

We demonstrate discrepancies between trial registrations and publications across RCTs investigating debilitating psychiatric disorders, especially in non-industry funded RCTs.

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials

BACKGROUND

Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%. We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ESFDA) was 0.24 (CI95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ESJournals) was 0.29 (CI95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10). Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs-belonging to a single class-and a focus on efficacy (versus safety).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature.

Re-Analyzing Phase III Bremelanotide Trials for "Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder" in Women

Kingsberg et al. described results from two 24-week Phase III trials of bremelanotide for treating hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women. 72.72% of protocol-listed outcomes were not reported by Kingsberg et al., who provided results of 15 secondary measures which were not listed in the study protocols. None of their efficacy outcomes were reported in line with CONSORT data reporting standards and no secondary outcome had a stated rationale or cited evidence of validity. My meta-analysis of the trials' data, based on the FDA New Drug Application, found similar results to Kingsberg et al. However, Kingsberg et al. did not report that a) adverse event-induced study discontinuation was substantially higher on bremelanotide: OR = 11.98, 95% CI = 3.74-38.37, NNH: 6 or b) participants preferred placebo, measured by the combination of both 1) completing a clinical trial and 2) electing to participate in the follow-up open-label study (OR = 0.30, 95% CI = .24-.38, NNH: 4). Bremelanotide's modest benefits on incompletely reported post-hoc measures of questionable validity in combination with participants substantially preferring to take placebo suggest that the drug is generally not useful. Kingsberg et al.'s data reporting and measurement practices were incomplete and lacked transparency.

Profiling nonhuman primate germline RNA to understand the legacy of early life stress

Exposure to stress is a risk factor for perturbed mental health, including impoverished regulation of emotional and physiological responses that accompany anxiety and mood disorders, substance abuse and behavioral disorders. Such disruptions to well‐being could be triggered by discrete environmental events or pervasive early life stress (ELS) resulting for example from adverse caregiving. Recent data mostly collected from rodents exposed to anthropogenic stressors suggest that one way via which the detrimental effects of such stress extend beyond the exposed population to future offspring is via stress‐induced alterations of RNA found in the paternal germline. In contrast, less attention has been paid to how naturally occurring stress in males might influence offspring biology and behavior. In this study, we used a translational nonhuman primate model of ELS caused by naturally occurring adverse caregiving of infant macaques to (1) profile total RNA in the adolescent male germline, and (2) identify how those RNA profiles are affected by exposure to ELS. Our findings that the top 100 transcripts identified correspond to transcripts related to germline biology and reproduction demonstrate the validity and feasibility of profiling RNA in the germline of rhesus macaques. While our small sample sizes precluded definitive assessment of stress‐induced alterations of RNA in the male germline of rhesus macaques that experienced ELS, our study sets the foundation for future investigations of how early adversity might alter the male germline, across species and in experimental protocols that involve anthropogenic vs natural stressors.

The top 100 genes in the male germline for which RNA sequences aligned to the sense strand were relevant to male germline‐related biology and reproduction.

Sequences aligned to the antisense strand that may play an important role in regulation of gene expression in the zygote after fertilization were also found.

The Cultural Politics of Mental Illness: Toward a Rights-Based Approach to Global Mental Health

The movement for global mental health (MGMH) has raised awareness about the paucity of mental health services, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. In response, policies and programs have been developed by the World Health Organization and by the Lancet Commission on global mental health, among other organizations. These policy initiatives and programs, while recognizing the importance of being responsive to local needs and culture, are based on Western biomedical conceptualizations of emotional distress. In the paper, we discuss how a rights-based approach can promote the voice and participation of people with lived experience into the MGMH. We argue that a human rights framework can be enhanced by incorporating the conceptual approaches of critical inquiry and community mental health. We also discuss how rights-based approaches and service-user activism can productively reconfigure Western psychiatric conceptualizations of distress and provide both a moral and empirical justification for a paradigm shift within the MGMH.

Withdrawal effects confounding in clinical trials: another sign of a needed paradigm shift in psychopharmacology research

Randomized controlled trials' ability to produce evidence useful for people to decide whether to take, continue taking, or stop taking psychotropic drugs has been intensely critiqued, along with the trials' commercial, ideological, and regulatory contexts. This article applies the critique to the topic of withdrawal effects confounding the outcomes of relapse-prevention trials where prescribed psychotropic drugs are discontinued. Until recently, the complexity and reach of withdrawal and post-withdrawal effects were neglected by mainstream psychiatry, but not by lay users of prescribed psychotropics. This article discusses withdrawal effects as part of the pharmacology of psychotropic drugs but shaped by psychosocial factors, and possibly shaping the presentation of psychological distress generally. It outlines biases and misconceptions in assumptions, design, and reporting of general efficacy trials and findings from a recent review of 80 discontinuation trials. In theory, relapse-prevention trials are tautological and exaggerate efficacy. In publications, they pay little attention to the central feature of their design, favor abrupt or rapid discontinuations, do not attend to environmental factors, and provide insufficient data to allow re-analyses. Thus, relapse-prevention RCTs likely confound the detection of their main outcome of interest: "relapse." Using slower tapers, active placebo controls, and specific covariates in analyses would reduce the risk of withdrawal confounding, and better reporting would reduce the opaqueness of trials. The crisis in psychopharmacology is fueled partly by the disconnect between claims of therapeutic efficacy from so-called best-evidence methods despite unchanging population-level indicators of psychiatric sickness. Only by "stacking the deck" against trial sponsors' hoped-for outcomes can psychopharmacology trials regain scientific credibility.

Clinical trial registry use in minimally invasive surgical oncology systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: to evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available.

Messaging in Biological Psychiatry: Misrepresentations, Their Causes, and Potential Consequences

Most experts in the field of psychiatry recognize that neuroscience advances have yet to be translated into clinical practice. The main message delivered to laypeople, however, is that mental disorders are brain diseases cured by scientifically designed medications. Here we describe how this misleading message is generated. We summarize the academic studies describing how biomedical observations are often misrepresented in the scientific literature through various forms of data embellishment, publication biases favoring initial and positive studies, improper interpretations, and exaggerated conclusions. These misrepresentations also affect biological psychiatry and are spread through mass media documents. Exacerbated competition, hyperspecialization, and the need to obtain funding for research projects might drive scientists to misrepresent their findings. Moreover, journalists are unaware that initial studies, even when positive and promising, are inherently uncertain. Journalists preferentially cover them and almost never inform the public when those studies are disconfirmed by subsequent research. This explains why reductionist theories about mental health often persist in mass media even though the scientific claims that have been put forward to support them have long been contradicted. These misrepresentations affect the care of patients. Indeed, studies show that a neuro-essentialist conceptualization of mental disorders negatively affects several aspects of stigmatization, reduces the chances of patients' healing, and overshadows psychotherapeutic and social approaches that have been found effective in alleviating mental suffering. Public information about mental health should avoid these reporting biases and give equal consideration to the biological, psychological, and social aspects of mental health.

Characteristics of mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

The ClinicalTrials.gov registry was established in 2000 to address concerns about publication bias and public access to information about clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate differences between for-profit and non-profit sponsors of efficacy mental health trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on key trial characteristics that relate to data integrity. We also sought to evaluate whether the registry is fulfilling its purpose as a means of promoting transparency between researchers and the public by providing complete and quality information about the trials it contains. We found that trials tend to be small, use a placebo instead of an active comparator, and employ randomization and blinding. We discuss the implications of these design characteristics and the limitations of the registry.

The effects of industry funding and positive outcomes in the interpretation of clinical trial results: a randomized trial among Dutch psychiatrists

BACKGROUND

Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists' appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome.

METHODS

Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials

BACKGROUND

Previous studies on reporting bias generally examined whether trials were published in stand-alone publications. In this study, we investigated whether pooled-trials publications constitute a specific form of reporting bias. We assessed whether negative trials were more likely to be exclusively published in pooled-trials publications than positive trials and examined the research questions, individual trial results, and conclusions presented in these articles.

METHODS

Data from a cohort of 105 randomized controlled trials of 16 antidepressants were extracted from earlier publications and the corresponding Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify pooled-trials publications.

RESULTS

We found 107 pooled-trials publications that reported results of 23 (72%) of 32 trials not published in stand-alone publications. Only two (3.8%) of 54 positive trials were published exclusively in pooled-trials publications, compared with 21 (41.1%) of 51 negative trials (p < 0.001). Thirteen (12%) of 107 publications had as primary aim to present data on the trial's primary research question (drug efficacy compared with placebo). Only four of these publications, reporting on five (22%) trials, presented individual efficacy data for the primary research question. Additionally, only five (5%) of 107 pooled-trials publications had a negative conclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with positive trials, negative trials of antidepressants for depression were much more likely to be reported exclusively in pooled-trials publications. Pooled-trials publications flood the evidence base with often-redundant articles that, instead of addressing the original primary research question, present (positive) results on secondary questions. Therefore, pooled-trials publications distort the apparent risk-benefit profile of antidepressants.

Discontinuing Psychotropic Drugs from Participants in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Methods and justifications for discontinuing psychotropic drugs in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and RCTs' acknowledgement of possible withdrawal symptoms following discontinuation, have not been examined systematically, which this review aims to do. Study Eligibility, Data Extraction, and Synthesis: Publications in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO (2000-2017) randomly assigning participants diagnosed with mental disorders to discontinue antipsychotic, antidepressant, anticonvulsant, antimanic, mood-stabilizing, benzodiazepine, or stimulant drugs. Authors independently extracted data, devised a typology of trials, and assessed trials' recognition of with-drawal symptoms.

RESULTS

Eighty RCTs (70% with industry participation) discontinued drugs from 5,757 participants to investigate relapse prevention (44%), successful dis-continuation (26%), architecture of withdrawal (14%), and practicality of discontinuation (10%). RCTs of stimulants, antidepressants, and antipsychotics mostly aimed to reach conclusions about relapse prevention by testing abrupt or rapid discontinuations; RCTs of benzodiazepines mostly aimed to reduce drug use by testing longer-lasting, supportive discontinuations. In 67% of RCTs, no justification was given for the specific discontinuation strategy, which lasted under 2 weeks in 60% of RCTs. Possible withdrawal confounding of trial outcomes was addressed in 14% of eligible RCTs.

LIMITATIONS

Only the published literature was searched.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

RCTs use drug discontinuation to study several key issues in psychopharmacology but infrequently justify how they implement it or acknowledge that possible withdrawal symptoms may threaten internal validity. Reappraising the use of drug discontinuation and the recognition of withdrawal symptoms in RCTs is required.

Registration, results reporting, and publication bias of clinical trials supporting FDA approval of neuropsychiatric drugs before and after FDAAA: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Mandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.

Results

The FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17–1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57–3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1–1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84–1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16–1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17–3.61, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2957-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Lifestyle coaching for mental health difficulties: scoping review

Purpose

UK mental health strategy calls for interventions that empower people to self-manage their condition. In lifestyle coaching, coach and client work collaboratively on positive behaviour change to improve client health. There is debate about the appropriateness of coaching for mental health, yet claims have not been supported with evidence. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the nature and scope of the existing research literature in this field.

Design/methodology/approach

Scoping review.

Findings

The growing evidence base shows positive outcomes of coaching; for instance, symptom reduction, enhanced self-management and achievement of personal goals.

Research limitations/implications

The evidence base is small and of variable quality, offering insights that warrant further exploration.

Practical implications

Coaching not only supports better self-management but also addresses further mental health strategy priorities (such as improved physical health and social functioning). Coaches need not be mental health experts; therefore coaching may be a cost-effective intervention.

Social implications

As mental ill-health prevalence continues to rise despite widespread use of Improving Access to Psychological Therapies and medication, there is a need to explore how novel approaches such as coaching might be integrated into mental healthcare.

Originality/value

This is the first study to collate the evidence on mental health coaching, highlighting its extensive potential, which should be further explored in research and practice.

The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias

Publication bias is prevalent within the scientific literature. Whilst there are multiple ideas on how to reduce publication bias, only a minority of journals have made substantive changes to address the problem. We aimed to explore the perceived feasibility of strategies to reduce publication bias by gauging opinions of journal editors (n = 73) and other academics/researchers (n = 160) regarding nine methods of publishing and peer-reviewing research: mandatory publication, negative results journals/articles, open reviewing, peer-review training and accreditation, post-publication review, pre-study publication of methodology, published rejection lists, research registration, and two-stage review. Participants completed a questionnaire asking both quantitative (multiple choice or Likert scales) and qualitative (open-ended) questions regarding the barriers to implementing each suggestion, and their strengths and limitations. Participants were asked to rate the nine suggestions, then choose the method they felt was most effective. Mandatory publication was most popularly selected as the 'most effective' method of reducing publication bias for editors (25%), and was the third most popular choice for academics/researchers (14%). The most common selection for academics/researchers was two-stage review (26%), but fewer editors prioritised this (11%). Negative results journals/articles were the second and third most common choices for academics/researchers (21%) and editors (16%), respectively. Editors more commonly chose research registration as 'most effective' (21%), which was favoured by only 6% of academics/researchers. Whilst mandatory publication was generally favoured by respondents, it is infeasible to trial at a journal level. Where suggestions have already been implemented (e.g. negative results journals/articles, trial registration), efforts should be made to objectively assess their efficacy. Two-stage review should be further trialled as its popularity amongst academics/researchers suggests it may be well received, though editors may be less receptive. Several underlying barriers to change also emerged, including scientific culture, impact factors, and researcher training; these should be further explored to reduce publication bias.

Outcome reporting bias in randomized-controlled trials investigating antipsychotic drugs

Recent literature hints that outcomes of clinical trials in medicine are selectively reported. If applicable to psychotic disorders, such bias would jeopardize the reliability of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating antipsychotics and thus their extrapolation to clinical practice. We therefore comprehensively examined outcome reporting bias in RCTs of antipsychotic drugs by a systematic review of prespecified outcomes on ClinicalTrials.gov records of RCTs investigating antipsychotic drugs in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2013. These outcomes were compared with outcomes published in scientific journals. Our primary outcome measure was concordance between prespecified and published outcomes; secondary outcome measures included outcome modifications on ClinicalTrials.gov after trial inception and the effects of funding source and directionality of results on record adherence. Of the 48 RCTs, 85% did not fully adhere to the prespecified outcomes. Discrepancies between prespecified and published outcomes were found in 23% of RCTs for primary outcomes, whereas 81% of RCTs had at least one secondary outcome non-reported, newly introduced, or changed to a primary outcome in the respective publication. In total, 14% of primary and 44% of secondary prespecified outcomes were modified after trial initiation. Neither funding source (P=0.60) nor directionality of the RCT results (P=0.10) impacted ClinicalTrials.gov record adherence. Finally, the number of published safety endpoints (N=335) exceeded the number of prespecified safety outcomes by 5.5 fold. We conclude that RCTs investigating antipsychotic drugs suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias and offer suggestions to both monitor and limit such bias in the future.

Subtle Scientific Fallacies Undermine the Validity of Neuroendocrinological Research: Do Not Draw Premature Conclusions on the Role of Female Sex Hormones

Major scientific flaws such as reporting and publication biases are well documented, even though acknowledgment of their importance appears to be lacking in various psychological and medical fields. Subtle and less obvious biases including selective reviews of the literature and empirically unsupported conclusions and recommendations have received even less attention. Using the literature on the association between transition to menopause, hormones and the onset of depression as a guiding example, I outline how such scientific fallacies undermine the validity of neuroendocrinological research. It is shown that in contrast to prominent claims, first, most prospective studies do not support the notion that the menopausal transition relates to increased risk for depression, second, that associations between hormone levels and depression are largely inconsistent and irreproducible, and, third, that the evidence for the efficacy of hormone therapy for the treatment of depression is very weak and at best inconclusive. I conclude that a direct and uniform association between female sex hormones and depression is clearly not supported by the literature and that more attention should be paid to the manifold scientific biases that undermine the validity of findings in psychological and medical research, with a specific focus on the behavioral neurosciences.

Vulnerability or Sensitivity to the Environment? Methodological Issues, Trends, and Recommendations in Gene-Environment Interactions Research in Human Behavior

Research on the potential role of gene-environment interactions (GxE) in explaining vulnerability to psychopathology in humans has witnessed a shift from a diathesis-stress perspective to differential susceptibility approaches. This paper critically reviews methodological issues and trends in this body of research. Databases were screened for studies of GxE in the prediction of personality traits, behavior, and mental health disorders in humans published between January 2002 and January 2015. In total, 315 papers were included. Results showed that 34 candidate genes have been included in GxE studies. Independent of the type of environment studied (early or recent life events, positive or negative environments), about 67-83% of studies have reported significant GxE interactions, which is consistent with a social susceptibility model. The percentage of positive results does not seem to differ depending on the gene studied, although publication bias might be involved. However, the number of positive findings differs depending on the population studied (i.e., young adults vs. older adults). Methodological considerations limit the ability to draw strong conclusions, particularly as almost 90% (n = 283/315) of published papers are based on samples from North America and Europe, and about 70% of published studies (219/315) are based on samples that were also used in other reports. At the same time, there are clear indications of methodological improvements over time, as is shown by a significant increase in longitudinal and experimental studies as well as in improved minimum genotyping. Recommendations for future research, such as minimum quality assessment of genes and environmental factors, specifying theoretical models guiding the study, and taking into account of cultural, ethnic, and lifetime perspectives, are formulated.

Neuroprogression and Cognitive Functioning in Bipolar Disorder: A Systematic Review

Bipolar disorder (BD) has been associated with impairments in a range of cognitive domains including attention, verbal learning, and mental flexibility. These deficits are increased during the acute phases of the illness and worsen over the course of BD. This review will examine the literature in relation to potential mechanisms associated with cognitive decline in BD. Scopus (all databases), Pubmed, and Ovid Medline were systematically searched with no language or year restrictions, up to January 2015, for human studies that collected cross-sectional and longitudinal cognitive data in adults with BD and matched healthy controls (HC). Selected search terms were "bipolar," "cognitive," "aging," "illness duration," "onset," and "progression." Thirty-nine studies satisfied the criteria for consideration. There is evidence that cognitive function in BD is negatively associated with features of illness progression such as number of mood episodes, illness duration, and hospitalizations. Aging does not appear to affect cognitive functioning to a greater extent than in HC. Furthermore, the small number of longitudinal studies in this field does not allow to reaching firm conclusion in terms of which sub-populations would be more prone to cognitive decline in BD. The decline in cognitive abilities over the course of the BD seems to be associated with the number of episodes and number of hospitalizations. No meaningful interaction of age and bipolar disorder has been found in terms of cognitive decline. Future large-scale longitudinal studies are necessary to confirm these findings and assist in the development of preventive interventions in vulnerable individuals.

Publication practices and standards: recommendations from GSK Vaccines' author survey

BACKGROUND

Evolving standards of good publication practice (GPP) and a survey conducted in 2009 of authors, who were investigators and researchers not employed by the company prompted changes to GSK Vaccines' publication practices. We conducted a follow-up survey in 2012 to assess the company's revised practices and to evaluate understanding of GPP among investigators and researchers who had previously authored at least one publication in collaboration with GSK Vaccines.

METHODS

The 50-question web-based survey addressed authoring practices and transparency of decision-making. Investigators and researchers (n = 1,273) who had authored at least one publication reporting on GSK Vaccines-sponsored human research since 2007, were invited to participate. Responses to 37 closed questions are presented. The remaining 13 questions were open-ended or did not concern publication practices.

RESULTS

A total of 415 external authors (32.6%) responded. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria were clear to most respondents (78.1%); 7.7% found they were unclear. The majority of participants (86.8%) found GSK Vaccines' authorship questionnaire a suitable tool to assess eligibility for authorship as per the ICMJE criteria. However, only 68.5% felt that the outcome of the questionnaire is communicated appropriately and 58.3% felt well informed on changes in authorship. Nearly two-thirds (62.9%) of respondents felt that having a pharmaceutical company employee as lead author makes manuscript acceptance less likely. Access to relevant data was regarded as sufficient by 78.5% of respondents. Briefing meetings before publication start, publication steering committees and core writing teams were recognized as valuable publication practices. Professional medical writing support was seen as adding value to publication development by 87.7% of participants. Most respondents agreed that manuscript discussions should start early, with 81.7% stating that they were in favor of introducing a formalized 'author agreement' at the publication start.

CONCLUSIONS

GSK Vaccines made changes to its publication practices to ensure improved transparency and better involvement of external authors. The results of this survey suggest that these changes have been effective to a large extent. They confirm the need for effective and timely communication, as well as transparent processes for authorship and decision-making during publication development. The identified gaps in GPP will help to guide further improvements to the company's policies on publication practices.

Exploring and accounting for publication bias in mental health: a brief overview of methods

OBJECTIVE Publication bias undermines the integrity of published research. The aim of this paper is to present a synopsis of methods for exploring and accounting for publication bias. METHODS We discussed the main features of the following methods to assess publication bias: funnel plot analysis; trim-and-fill methods; regression techniques and selection models. We applied these methods to a well-known example of antidepressants trials that compared trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for regulatory approval. RESULTS The funnel plot-related methods (visual inspection, trim-and-fill, regression models) revealed an association between effect size and SE. Contours of statistical significance showed that asymmetry in the funnel plot is probably due to publication bias. Selection model found a significant correlation between effect size and propensity for publication. CONCLUSIONS Researchers should always consider the possible impact of publication bias. Funnel plot-related methods should be seen as a means of examining for small-study effects and not be directly equated with publication bias. Possible causes for funnel plot asymmetry should be explored. Contours of statistical significance may help disentangle whether asymmetry in a funnel plot is caused by publication bias or not. Selection models, although underused, could be useful resource when publication bias and heterogeneity are suspected because they address directly the problem of publication bias and not that of small-study effects.

Inflammatory mediators of cognitive impairment in bipolar disorder

OBJECTIVES

Recent studies have pointed to neuroinflammation, oxidative stress and neurotrophic factors as key mediators in the pathophysiology of mood disorders. Little is however known about the cascade of biological episodes underlying the cognitive deficits observed during the acute and euthymic phases of bipolar disorder (BD). The aim of this review is to assess the potential association between cognitive impairment and biomarkers of inflammation, oxidative stress and neurotrophic activity in BD.

METHODS

Scopus (all databases), Pubmed and Ovid Medline were systematically searched with no language or year restrictions, up to November 2013, for human studies that collected both inflammatory markers and cognitive data in BD. Selected search terms were bipolar disorder, depression, mania, psychosis, inflammatory, cognitive and neurotrophic.

RESULTS

Ten human studies satisfied the criteria for consideration. The findings showed that high levels of peripheral inflammatory-cytokine, oxidative stress and reduced brain derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels were associated with poor cognitive performance. The BDNF val66met polymorphism is a potential vulnerability factor for cognitive impairment in BD.

CONCLUSIONS

Current data provide preliminary evidence of a link between the cognitive decline observed in BD and mechanisms of neuroinflammation and neuroprotection. The identification of BD specific inflammatory markers and polymorphisms in inflammatory response genes may be of assistance for therapeutic intervention.

The impact of psychopharmacology on contemporary clinical psychiatry

Clinical psychiatric evaluations of patients have changed dramatically in recent decades. Both initial assessments and follow-up visits have become brief and superficial, focused on searching for categorical diagnostic criteria from checklists, with limited inquiry into patient-reported symptomatic status and tolerability of treatments. The virtually exclusive therapeutic task has become selecting a plausible psychotropic, usually based on expert consensus guidelines. These guidelines and practice patterns rest mainly on published monotherapy trials that may or may not be applicable to particular patients but are having a profound impact, not only on modern psychiatric practice but also on psychiatric education, research, and theory.

Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To examine the degree of concordance in reporting serious adverse events (SAEs) from antidepressant and antipsychotic drug trials among journal articles and clinical trial summaries, and to categorise types of discrepancies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of summaries of all antidepressant and antipsychotic trials included in an online trial registry and their first associated stand-alone journal articles.

SETTING

Clinicalstudyresults.org, sponsored by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; clinicaltrials.gov, administered by the US National Institutes of Health.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

3 coders extracted data on the numbers and types of SAEs.

RESULTS

244 trial summaries for six antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs were retrieved, 142 (58.2%) listing an associated article. Of 1608 SAEs in drug-treated participants according to trial summaries, 694 (43.2%) did not appear in associated articles. Nearly 60% of SAEs counted in articles and 41% in trial summaries had no description. Most cases of death (62.3%) and suicide (53.3%) were not reported in articles. Half or more of the 142 pairs were discordant in reporting the number (49.3%) or description (67.6%) of SAEs. These discrepancies resulted from journal articles' (1) omission of complete SAE data, (2) reporting acute phase study results only and (3) more restrictive reporting criteria. Trial summaries with zero SAE were 2.35 (95% CI, 1.58 to 3.49; p<0.001) times more likely to be published with no discrepancy in their associated journal article. Since clinicalstudyresults.org was removed from the Internet in 2011, only 7.8% of retrieved trial summaries appear with results on clinicaltrials.gov.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial discrepancies exist in SAE data found in journal articles and registered summaries of antidepressant and antipsychotic drug trials. Two main scientific sources accessible to clinicians and researchers are limited by incomplete, ambiguous and inconsistent reporting. Access to complete and accurate data from clinical trials of drugs currently in use remains a pressing concern.

Does reductio ad absurdum have a place in evidence-based medicine?

In a meta-analysis published in BMC Medicine, we explored whether evidence-based medicine can actually be sure that 'sucrose = sucrose' in the treatment of depression. This paper, based upon a reductio ad absurdum, addressed an epistemological question using a 'scientific' approach, and could be disconcerting as suggested by Cipriani and Geddes' commentary. However, most papers are based upon a mixture of observations and discussions about sense and meaning. Ultimately, there is nothing more than a story, told with words or numbers. Randomised controlled trials provide information about average patients that do not exist. These results ignores an entire segment of therapeutics that plays a crucial role, namely care. This information is usually set out using a 'grammar' that is ambiguous, since statistical tests of hypothesis have raised epistemological questions that are not as yet solved. Moreover, many of these stories remain untold, and unpublished. For these reasons evidence-based medicine is a vehicle for many paradoxes and controversies. Reductio ad absurdum can be useful in precisely this case, to underline how and why the medical literature can sometimes give an impression of absurdity of this sort. Even if the data analysis in our paper was rather rhetorical, we agree that it should comply with the classic standards of reporting and we provide the important extra data that Cipriani and Geddes have requested.

Drug approval and drug effectiveness

Data on the efficacy and safety of psychiatric medicines should form the foundation of evidence-based treatment practices. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews such data in determining whether to approve new treatments, and the published literature serves as a repository for evidence on treatment benefits and harms. We describe the FDA review of clinical trials, examining the underlying logic and legal guidelines. Several FDA reviews provide evidence that the agency requires only minimal efficacy for psychiatric drugs. Further, in some instances, the FDA has relied on secondary rather than primary outcomes and has discounted the findings of negative studies in its review of antidepressant and antipsychotic medications. The published literature provides another lens into the safety and efficacy of treatments. We describe how treatment efficacy is systematically overstated and treatment-related harms are understated in the scientific literature. Suggestions are provided to improve public access to underlying safety and efficacy data and for the FDA to potentially improve its review process.