Conflicts of interest and outcomes of clinical trials of antidepressants: An 18-year retrospective study
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Several studies indicate that industry funding can lead to bias in clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical guidelines.
“Several studies indicate that industry funding can lead to bias in clinical trials, systematic reviews and clinical guidelines [278][279][280][281] .”
From Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs (2024) · cites this paper as [279]
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