The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: The case of depression

Y. A. De Vries*, A. M. Roest, P. De Jonge, P. Cuijpers, M. R. Munafò, J. A. Bastiaansen

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to JournalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Evidence-based medicine is the cornerstone of clinical practice, but it is dependent on the quality of evidence upon which it is based. Unfortunately, up to half of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have never been published, and trials with statistically significant findings are more likely to be published than those without (Dwan et al., 2013). Importantly, negative trials face additional hurdles beyond study publication bias that can result in the disappearance of non-significant results (Boutron et al., 2010; Dwan et al., 2013; Duyx et al., 2017). Here, we analyze the cumulative impact of biases on apparent efficacy, and discuss possible remedies, using the evidence base for two effective treatments for depression: Antidepressants and psychotherapy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)2453-2455
Number of pages3
JournalPsychological Medicine
Volume48
Issue number15
Early online date2 Aug 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2018

Keywords

  • Antidepressants
  • bias
  • citation bias
  • depression
  • psychotherapy
  • reporting bias

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The cumulative effect of reporting and citation biases on the apparent efficacy of treatments: The case of depression'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this