The Adequacy of Reporting Randomized, Controlled Trials in the Evaluation of Antidepressants
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the adequacy of the reports of methodological and statistical aspects of randomized, controlled trials that evaluate antidepressant medications and the degree to which their results can be used in subsequent metaanalyses. Data sources Randomized, controlled trials published in English that compared 2 antidepressant drugs with a placebo were reviewed. Papers were located using Medline and reference lists. Data extraction Each paper was evaluated using a checklist, and 3 summary criteria scores were derived: minimal, ideal, and overall. Results Only 9 of the 69 papers met the minimal criteria to be included in a metaanalysis (which would report the final sample size and an estimate of the mean and of the standard deviation); and 0 met all of the ideal criteria for reporting clinical trials. Out of a possible 100 points, the mean score for the articles was 51, and the highest score was 80. Scores were not related to the citation impact factor of the journal in which they appeared. Conclusions Researchers must become more aware of the criteria for reporting clinical trials, and editors must insist more strenuously that these criteria be satisfied.
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?
Many of the problems identified in the studies reviewed are also present in research into other interventions in the management of depression.
“Many of the problems we identified in the studies we reviewed are also present in research into other interventions in the management of depression, 90 91”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 29 · Cited by 15
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- 10.1097/00003246-199602000-00025 · DOI
- 10.1177/070674379504000208 · DOI
- Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, 1981, Can Med Assoc J, 124, 985
- Streiner DL, 1996, PDQ epidemiology
- 10.3102/0013189X005010003 · DOI · Paper page
- Cochran WG, 1977, Sampling techniques
- 10.1056/NEJM197912273012602 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/sim.4780060314 · DOI
- 10.1177/106002808802201021 · DOI
- 10.1016/0197-2456(89)90017-2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195035681.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.1995.03520370096044 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1001/jama.1994.03520240054041 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.7326/0003-4819-108-2-266 · DOI
- 10.7326/0003-4819-121-11-199412010-00015 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJM197907263010403 · DOI
- 10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1056/NEJM198708133170706 · DOI
- 10.1001/jama.1990.03440100061010 · DOI
- 10.1016/S0140-6736(96)90538-3 · DOI
- Cook TD, 1979, Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings
- 10.1177/070674379604101002 · DOI
- Garfield E, 1996, Journal citation reports
- National Center for Health Statistics, 1980, International classification of diseases
- 10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770300115013 · DOI
- 10.1001/archpsyc.1972.01750190059011 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.4780140507 · DOI
- 10.1002/sim.4780060306 · DOI · Paper page
- Oxman AD, 1988, Can Med Assoc J, 138, 697
- 10.1037/0022-006X.60.5.664 · DOI
- Jadad AR. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pain relief research: What can (and cannot) they do for us? Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Pain; 1996; Seattle. Seattle: International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP). p 445–52.
- Authors
- Streiner, D. L., & Joffe, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- McMaster University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Streiner, David L
- ORCID
- Streiner, David L
- Venue
- The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1998-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1026-1030
- ISSN
- 0706-7437 (ISSN-L)
- 1497-0015
- OpenAlex
- W2438769095
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 29
- Citations by year
- 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Keywords
- antidepressants, reporting quality, randomized controlled trials, trial methodology reporting, statistical reporting, reporting guidelines, publication bias
- MeSH terms
- Antidepressive Agents, Data Collection, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depressive Disorder, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
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
