The doctor writing your prescription reads the published literature. If the literature has been filtered, their decision is contaminated — without their knowing it, and through no fault of their own.
PEER-REVIEWEDTURNER ET AL. NEJM 2008
Half the trials were positive. Almost all the published ones were positive.
Researchers compared 73 trials of 12 antidepressants (12,564 patients) registered with the FDA against what was eventually published. Only 50 (69%) were ever published — and the negative ones were the ones that disappeared.
The result: the therapeutic benefit, as it appeared in the published literature, was inflated by 32% overall — ranging from 11% to 69% depending on the drug.
[9] N Engl J Med 2008;358:252–260
PEER-REVIEWEDSTUDY 329 RIAT · BMJ 2015
The trial that reported the opposite of its own data
In 2001 a study funded by SmithKline Beecham (later GSK) presented paroxetine as effective and safe for adolescents with depression. It became one of the most influential papers in the field.
In 2015 an independent team repeated the analysis from the primary data, under the BMJ's RIAT initiative. The conclusion was the reverse: paroxetine did not differ from placebo on efficacy, while the group receiving it showed more suicidal ideation and behaviour.
Fourteen years passed during which the original version circulated as science.
[10] Le Noury J. et al. "Restoring Study 329", BMJ 2015;351:h4320
SHARE
Sources for this section
[9]Turner EH, Matthews AM, Linardatos E, Tell RA, Rosenthal R. Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy. N Engl J Med 2008;358:252–260. nejm.org
[10]Le Noury J, Nardo JM, Healy D, Jureidini J, Raven M, Tufanaru C, Abi-Jaoude E. Restoring Study 329. BMJ 2015;351:h4320. pubmed
Written byPetros Chatzianastasiou I am not a doctor. Every claim cites its primary source. Any step you take with your own treatment, always in consultation with your treating doctor and under their monitoring and guidance.