Cited by 71Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review

Open access
Lieb, Klaus, Osten-Sacken, Jan von der, Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta, Reiss, Neele, Barth, Jürgen·2016·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objective: To explore conflicts of interest (COI) and their reporting in systematic reviews of psychological therapies, and to evaluate spin in the conclusions of the reviews. Methods: MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2013 that assessed effects of psychological therapies for anxiety, depressive or personality disorders, and included at least one randomised controlled trial. Required COI disclosure by journal, disclosed COI by review authors, and the inclusion of own primary studies by review authors were extracted. Researcher allegiance, that is, that researchers concluded favourably about the interventions they have studied, as well as spin, that is, differences between results and conclusions of the reviews, were rated by 2 independent raters. Results: 936 references were retrieved, 95 reviews fulfilled eligibility criteria. 59 compared psychological therapies with other forms of psychological therapies, and 36 psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions. Financial, non-financial, and personal COI were disclosed in 22, 4 and 1 review, respectively. 2 of 86 own primary studies of review authors included in 34 reviews were disclosed by review authors. In 15 of the reviews, authors showed an allegiance effect to the evaluated psychological therapy that was never disclosed. Spin in review conclusions was found in 27 of 95 reviews. Reviews with a conclusion in favour of psychological therapies (vs pharmacological interventions) were at high risk for a spin in conclusions (OR=8.31 (1.41 to 49.05)). Spin was related in trend to the inclusion of own primary studies in the systematic review (OR=2.08 (CI 0.83 to 5.18) p=0.11) and researcher allegiance (OR=2.63 (0.84 to 8.16) p=0.16). Conclusions: Non-financial COI, especially the inclusion of own primary studies into reviews and researcher allegiance, are frequently seen in systematic reviews of psychological therapies and need more transparency and better management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lieb, K., Osten-Sacken, J. V. D., Stoffers-Winterling, J., Reiss, N., & Barth, J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
Corresponding author
Lieb, Klaus
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-04
Volume
6
Issue
4
Pages
e010606
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2343875755
Cited by
69
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5
FWCI
1.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
Universitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
conflicts of interest, conflict of interest disclosure, psychotherapy, anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, personality disorders, pharmacological interventions
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Personality Disorders, Psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Conflict of Interest, Treatment Outcome

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