Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25062429›Full record

SynthesisPsychological medicine2015

Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression?

J Flint, P Cuijpers, J Horder, S L Koole, M R Munafò

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psychological medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
9.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Editorial Perspective: Misaligned incentives in mental health research - the case for Registered Reports.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Lack of evidence to favor specific preventive interventions in psychosis: a network meta-analysis.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. EPA guidance on improving the image of psychiatry.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2016
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

J FlintWellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics,University of Oxford,UK.
P CuijpersDepartment of Clinical Psychology,VU University Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
J HorderDepartment of Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry,King's College London,UK.
S L KooleDepartment of Clinical Psychology,VU University Amsterdam,The Netherlands.
M R MunafòUK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Experimental Psychology,University of Bristol,UK.
King's College London · GBUniversity of Bristol · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

British Heart FoundationCancer Research UKMedical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMany studies have examined the efficacy of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) but publication bias against null results may exist in this literature. However, to date, the presence of an excess of significant findings in this literature has not been explicitly tested.

methodWe used a database of 1344 articles on the psychological treatment of depression, identified through systematic search in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane database of randomized trials. From these we identified 149 studies eligible for inclusion that provided 212 comparisons. We tested for an excess of significant findings using the method developed by Ioannidis and Trikalinos (2007), and compared the distribution of p values in this literature with the distribution in the antidepressant literature, where publication bias is known to be operating.

resultsThe average statistical power to detect the effect size indicated by the meta-analysis was 49%. A total of 123 comparisons (58%) reported a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups, but on the basis of the average power observed, we would only have expected 104 (i.e. 49%) to do so. There was therefore evidence of an excess of significance in this literature (p = 0.010). Similar results were obtained when these analyses were restricted to studies including a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) arm. Finally, the distribution of p values for psychotherapy studies resembled that for published antidepressant studies, where publication bias against null results has already been established.

conclusionsThe small average size of individual psychotherapy studies is only sufficient to detect large effects. Our results indicate an excess of significant findings relative to what would be expected, given the average statistical power of studies of psychotherapy for major depression.

Indexed as

Publication BiasAntidepressive AgentsHumansMajor Depressive DisorderPsychotherapyRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicAntidepressive AgentsCognitive behavioural therapydepressionexcess of significancemeta-analysispsychotherapypublication bias

Identifiers

PMID25062429
PMCPMC4301215
OpenAlexW2106229155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.