Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19666685›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications.

Santiago G Moreno, Alex J Sutton, Erick H Turner, Keith R Abrams, Nicola J Cooper, Tom M Palmer, A E Ades

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 25 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 25 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 25 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Project INTEGRATE: An integrative study of brief alcohol interventions for college students.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2015
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Santiago G MorenoDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH. sgm8@le.ac.uk
Alex J Sutton
Erick H Turner
Keith R Abrams
Nicola J Cooper
Tom M Palmer
A E Ades

Funding

Medical Research Council G0600705Medical Research Council G0800800Medical Research Council G106/1170Medical Research Council MC_U145079307
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the performance of novel contour enhanced funnel plots and a regression based adjustment method to detect and adjust for publication biases.

designSecondary analysis of a published systematic literature review. DATA SOURCES: Placebo controlled trials of antidepressants previously submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and matching journal publications.

methodsPublication biases were identified using novel contour enhanced funnel plots, a regression based adjustment method, Egger's test, and the trim and fill method. Results were compared with a meta-analysis of the gold standard data submitted to the FDA.

resultsSevere asymmetry was observed in the contour enhanced funnel plot that appeared to be heavily influenced by the statistical significance of results, suggesting publication biases as the cause of the asymmetry. Applying the regression based adjustment method to the journal data produced a similar pooled effect to that observed by a meta-analysis of the FDA data. Contrasting journal and FDA results suggested that, in addition to other deviations from study protocol, switching from an intention to treat analysis to a per protocol one would contribute to the observed discrepancies between the journal and FDA results.

conclusionNovel contour enhanced funnel plots and a regression based adjustment method worked convincingly and might have an important part to play in combating publication biases.

Indexed as

Publication BiasAntidepressive AgentsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRegistriesRegression AnalysisStatistics as TopicUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationAntidepressive Agents

Identifiers

PMID19666685
PMCPMC2723217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.