Cited by 9Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareTreatment of Major DepressionPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

Conflicts of interest and outcomes of clinical trials of antidepressants: An 18-year retrospective study

Waqas, Ahmed, Baig, Ammad Anwar, Khalid, Muhammad Ali, Aedma, Kapil Kiran, Naveed, Sadiq·2019·Journal of Psychiatric Research

Abstract

Pharmaceutical sponsorship, funding sources, and investigators' conflicts of interest may be potential influencers in the conduct and results of clinical trials, as well as in the promotion of psychiatric drug therapies. We report the results of an audit of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of antidepressants conducted from 2000 to 2017. We searched the Web of Science databases with a comprehensive search strategy to identify phase 2 and 3 RCTs. Out of the 1085 articles initially located, a total of 291 RCTs were identified and included in the final analyses. A higher percentage of RCTs conducted by employees of pharmaceutical companies reported favorable results than those with academic or governmental funding (76.90% vs. 60.60%); however, this association was not significant (Χ 2 = 2.47, P = 0.18). The data were further analyzed using bivariate and cluster analytical approaches, and the nonsignificant association persisted in both cases. However, analyses of industry-funded placebo-controlled trials (a subgroup of the 291 RCTs) revealed a higher proportion of results that were reported as significant compared to their counterparts with other funding sources (67% vs. 33%). This association was statistically significant (Χ 2 = 9.56, P = 0.002), indicating that there is evidence in support of conflicts of interest as a potential bias in the outcomes of RCTs conducted for antidepressants.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2019.05.029

Cites

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 15 · Cited by 9

Authors
Waqas, A., Baig, A. A., Khalid, M. A., Aedma, K. K., & Naveed, S.
Affiliations
  • CMH Lahore Medical College and Institute of Dentistry (PK)
  • KVC Health Systems (US)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Waqas, Ahmed
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
116
Pages
83-87
ISSN
0022-3956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2952767763
Cited by
9
References
15
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
conflicts of interest, antidepressants, pharmaceutical industry sponsorship, industry funding, clinical trial results, publication bias, funding sources, randomized controlled trials, research integrity
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Drug Industry, Humans, Research Personnel, Retrospective Studies, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Conflict of Interest, Clinical Audit

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