Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22448149›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2012

Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database.

Erick H Turner, Daniel Knoepflmacher, Lee Shapley

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
14.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 109 citations in OpenAlex.

  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. Trial
  13. Otitis Media Trial Publication After ClinicalTrials.gov Registration.Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2025
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erick H TurnerDepartment of Psychiatry, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. turnere@ohsu.edu
Daniel Knoepflmacher
Lee Shapley
Oregon Health & Science University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPublication bias compromises the validity of evidence-based medicine, yet a growing body of research shows that this problem is widespread. Efficacy data from drug regulatory agencies, e.g., the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), can serve as a benchmark or control against which data in journal articles can be checked. Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to which it inflates apparent drug efficacy. METHODS AND

findingsFDA Drug Approval Packages for eight second-generation antipsychotics-aripiprazole, iloperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, risperidone long-acting injection (risperidone LAI), and ziprasidone--were used to identify a cohort of 24 FDA-registered premarketing trials. The results of these trials according to the FDA were compared with the results conveyed in corresponding journal articles. The relationship between study outcome and publication status was examined, and effect sizes derived from the two data sources were compared. Among the 24 FDA-registered trials, four (17%) were unpublished. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug had a statistical advantage over placebo, and one showed the study drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator. Among the 20 published trials, the five that were not positive, according to the FDA, showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias. However, the association between trial outcome and publication status did not reach statistical significance. Further, the apparent increase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically significant. On the other hand, the effect size for unpublished trials (0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.39) was less than half that for the published trials (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.54), a difference that was significant.

conclusionsThe magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently. Without increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions between effective and ineffective drugs.

Indexed as

Antipsychotic AgentsAripiprazoleBenzodiazepinesDatabases, FactualDibenzothiazepinesHumansIsoxazolesOlanzapinePaliperidone PalmitatePiperazinesPiperidinesPublication BiasPyrimidinesQuetiapine FumarateQuinolonesRisperidoneAntipsychotic AgentsAripiprazoleBenzodiazepinesDibenzothiazepinesiloperidoneIsoxazolesOlanzapinePaliperidone PalmitatePiperazinesPiperidinesPyrimidinesQuetiapine FumarateQuinolonesRisperidone

Identifiers

PMID22448149
PMCPMC3308934
OpenAlexW2076224203

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.