CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 107Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsTreatment of Major Depression

Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants

Ebrahim, Shanil, Bance, Sheena, Athale, Abha, Malachowski, Cindy, Ioannidis, John P.A.·2016·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives To identify the impact of industry involvement in the publication and interpretation of meta-analyses of antidepressant trials in depression.Study design and setting Using MEDLINE, we identified all meta-analyses evaluating antidepressants for depression published in January 2007-March 2014. We extracted data pertaining to author affiliations, conflicts of interest, and whether the conclusion of the abstract included negative statements on whether the antidepressant(s) were effective or safe.Results We identified 185 eligible meta-analyses. Fifty-four meta-analyses (29%) had authors who were employees of the assessed drug manufacturer, and 147 (79%) had some industry link (sponsorship or authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest). Only 58 meta-analyses (31%) had negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses including an author who were employees of the manufacturer of the assessed drug were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses [1/54 (2%) vs. 57/131 (44%); P < 0.001].Conclusion There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts. Our findings add a note of caution for meta-analyses with ties to the manufacturers of the assessed products.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Antidepressants have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms.

    “Generally, all the previous reviews show that antidepressants seem to have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms”

    From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

  • All previous reviews show that antidepressants have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms.

    “All these previous reviews show that antidepressants have statistically significant effects on depressive symptoms.”

    From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

  • In meta-analyses including an author who was an employee of the manufacturer of the assessed drug, these were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses.

    “Ebrahim et al 30 identified 185 eligible meta-analyses assessing the effects of different antidepressants, and in the meta-analyses including an author who was an employee of the manufacturer of the assessed drug, these were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses.”

    From Should antidepressants be used for major depressive disorder? (2020) · cites this paper as [30]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ebrahim, S., Bance, S., Athale, A., Malachowski, C., & Ioannidis, J. P. A.
Affiliations
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Ioannidis, John P.A.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
70
Pages
155-163
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021
OpenAlex
W1953543234
Cited by
107
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11
FWCI
2.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
antidepressants, depression, meta-analysis, industry funding, conflicts of interest, pharmaceutical industry, author affiliation, publication bias, drug safety, drug effectiveness
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Depression, Drug Industry, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Conflict of Interest

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review