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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

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.

Overview

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.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 33 references

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–107 of 107

Metadata

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.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-02
Volume
70
Pages
155-163
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
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
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › 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