Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
As meta-analyses have become highly influential for guiding clinical practice, they may be used as marketing tools by the industry.
Objectives:
To identify how many recent meta-analyses of antidepressant trials in depression are authored or sponsored by the industry or have authors with conflicts of interest; and evaluate whether this may affect the overall interpretation of their results.
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE to identify all published meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating antidepressants in patients with depressive conditions from 1 January 2007 to 5 March 2014. We extracted data pertaining to author’s affiliations, conflicts of interests and whether the abstract of the meta-analysis included a negative concluding statement as to whether the antidepressant(s) were effective or safe.
Results:
Of the 1111 citations, we retrieved 262 in full text, and eventually identified 187 meta-analyses that were eligible. One hundred and thirty four (72%) meta-analyses had authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest for a for-profit organization. One hundred and twenty nine meta-analyses (69%) did not include any caveats or negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses having at least one author employed by a for-profit organization or having financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturer of the assessed drug were significantly associated with fewer negative statements about the assessed antidepressant in the abstract’s concluding statement (p<0.001) (Table 1).
Conclusions:
There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants in depression performed by the industry or by authors with financial conflicts of interest with industry and these meta-analyses almost never include any negative statements about antidepressants.
As meta-analyses have become highly influential for guiding clinical practice, they may be used as marketing tools by the industry.
Objectives:
To identify how many recent meta-analyses of antidepressant trials in depression are authored or sponsored by the industry or have authors with conflicts of interest; and evaluate whether this may affect the overall interpretation of their results.
Methods:
We searched MEDLINE to identify all published meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials evaluating antidepressants in patients with depressive conditions from 1 January 2007 to 5 March 2014. We extracted data pertaining to author’s affiliations, conflicts of interests and whether the abstract of the meta-analysis included a negative concluding statement as to whether the antidepressant(s) were effective or safe.
Results:
Of the 1111 citations, we retrieved 262 in full text, and eventually identified 187 meta-analyses that were eligible. One hundred and thirty four (72%) meta-analyses had authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest for a for-profit organization. One hundred and twenty nine meta-analyses (69%) did not include any caveats or negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses having at least one author employed by a for-profit organization or having financial conflicts of interest with the manufacturer of the assessed drug were significantly associated with fewer negative statements about the assessed antidepressant in the abstract’s concluding statement (p<0.001) (Table 1).
Conclusions:
There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants in depression performed by the industry or by authors with financial conflicts of interest with industry and these meta-analyses almost never include any negative statements about antidepressants.