Is investigator background related to outcome in head to head trials of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression? A systematic review and meta-analysis

A Systematic Appraisal of Conflicts of Interest and Researcher Allegiance in Clinical Studies of Dry Needling for Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and methods of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting in published dry needling (DN) studies and to determine the frequency of researcher allegiance (RA).

METHODS

A pragmatic systematic search was undertaken to identify DN studies that were included in systematic reviews. Information regarding COI and RA were extracted from the full text of the published DN reports, and study authors were sent a survey inquiring about the presence of RA. A secondary analysis also was undertaken based on study quality/risk of bias scores that were extracted from the corresponding systematic reviews and study funding extracted from each DN study.

RESULTS

Sixteen systematic reviews were identified, containing 60 studies of DN for musculoskeletal pain disorders, 58 of which were randomized controlled trials. Of the DN studies, 53% had a COI statement. None of these studies disclosed a COI. Nineteen (32%) authors of DN studies responded to the survey. According to the RA survey, 100% of DN studies included at least 1 RA criterion. According to the data extraction, 1 RA criterion was met in 45% of the DN studies. The magnitude of RA per study was 7 times higher according to the surveys than in the published reports.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that COI and RA might be underreported in studies of DN. In addition, authors of DN studies might be unaware of the potential influence of RA on study results and conclusions.

IMPACT

Improved reporting of COI/RA might improve credibility of results and help identify the various factors involved in complex interventions provided by physical therapists. Doing so could help optimize treatments for musculoskeletal pain disorders provided by physical therapists.

Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies

A seminal Lancet series focused on increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research, providing a transferrable template to diagnose problems in research. Our goal was to document how some of these sources of waste apply to mental health and particularly psychological treatments research. We synthesize and critically evaluate empirical findings in relation to four major sources: i) defining research priorities; ii) research design, methods and analysis; iii) accessibility of research information; iv) accuracy and usability of research reports. We demonstrate that each source of waste considered is well-represented and amply documented within this field. We describe hype and insufficient consideration of what is known in defining research priorities, persistent risk of bias, particularly due to selective outcome reporting, for psychotherapy trials across mental disorders, intellectual and financial biases, direct and indirect evidence of publication bias, largely inexistent adoption of data sharing, issues of multiplicity and fragmentation of data and findings, and insufficient adoption of reporting guidelines. We expand on a few general solutions, including supporting meta-research, properly testing interventions to increase research quality, placing open science at the center of psychological treatment research and remaining vigilant particularly regarding the strains of research currently prioritized, such as experimental psychopathology.