SynthesisBMJ open2016
Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Investigator Meditation Practice Predicts Efficacy of Child/Adolescent Mindfulness-Based Interventions: A Meta-Analysis.Psychotherapy and psychosomatics · 2026Pooled it
- Psychological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pharmacological interventions for antisocial personality disorder.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Conflicts of interest and industry funding declared in systematic reviews of interventions for six common diagnoses.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2026Article
- Misleading readers without lies: understanding spin and its relevance to acupuncture research.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review of Adenoma Versus Polyp Detection Rates.Cureus · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- Gut Microbiota Modulation in Type 2 Diabetes and Cardiometabolic Risk: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Review
- Pathogenesis and Treatment of Non-alcoholic Steatohepatitis and Its Fibrosis: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- A literature review of non-financial conflicts of interest in healthcare research and publication.BMC medical ethics · 2025Review
- Role of Regulatory T Cells and Transglutaminase 2 Inhibitors in Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Review
- Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs.World psychiatry : official journal of the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) · 2024Article
- Sample Size Considerations for Fine-Tuning Large Language Models for Named Entity Recognition Tasks: Methodological Study.JMIR AI · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore conflicts of interest (COI) and their reporting in systematic reviews of psychological therapies, and to evaluate spin in the conclusions of the reviews.
methodsMEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2013 that assessed effects of psychological therapies for anxiety, depressive or personality disorders, and included at least one randomised controlled trial. Required COI disclosure by journal, disclosed COI by review authors, and the inclusion of own primary studies by review authors were extracted. Researcher allegiance, that is, that researchers concluded favourably about the interventions they have studied, as well as spin, that is, differences between results and conclusions of the reviews, were rated by 2 independent raters.
results936 references were retrieved, 95 reviews fulfilled eligibility criteria. 59 compared psychological therapies with other forms of psychological therapies, and 36 psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions. Financial, non-financial, and personal COI were disclosed in 22, 4 and 1 review, respectively. 2 of 86 own primary studies of review authors included in 34 reviews were disclosed by review authors. In 15 of the reviews, authors showed an allegiance effect to the evaluated psychological therapy that was never disclosed. Spin in review conclusions was found in 27 of 95 reviews. Reviews with a conclusion in favour of psychological therapies (vs pharmacological interventions) were at high risk for a spin in conclusions (OR=8.31 (1.41 to 49.05)). Spin was related in trend to the inclusion of own primary studies in the systematic review (OR=2.08 (CI 0.83 to 5.18) p=0.11) and researcher allegiance (OR=2.63 (0.84 to 8.16) p=0.16).
conclusionsNon-financial COI, especially the inclusion of own primary studies into reviews and researcher allegiance, are frequently seen in systematic reviews of psychological therapies and need more transparency and better management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.