Cited by 870Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsSchizophrenia research and treatmentStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials

Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised controlled trials of treatments for schizophrenia

Open access
Marshall, Max, Lockwood, Austin, Bradley, Caroline, Adams, Clive, Joy, Claire, Fenton, Mark·2000·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: A recent review suggested an association between using unpublished scales in clinical trials and finding significant results. Aims: To determine whether such an association existed in schizophrenia trials. Method: Three hundred trials were randomly selected from the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register. All comparisons between treatment groups and control groups using rating scales were identified. The publication status of each scale was determined and claims of a significant treatment effect were recorded. Results: Trials were more likely to report that a treatment was superior to control when an unpublished scale was used to make the comparison (relative risk 1.37 (95% C11.12–1.68)). This effect increased when a ‘gold-standard’ definition of treatment superiority was applied (RR 1.94 (95% C11.35–2.79)). In non-pharmacological trials, one-third of ‘gold-standard’ claims of treatment superiority would not have been made if published scales had been used. Conclusions: Unpublished scales are a source of bias in schizophrenia trials.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.176.3.249

Cites

5 of 5 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?

  • Continuous outcome data were extracted only when the psychometric scale had been previously published in a peer-reviewed journal and had not been modified by the trial authors.

    “we extracted continuous data only if the psychometric scale used to measure the outcome of interest had been previously published in a peer-reviewed journal (Marshall 2000), and was not subjected to item, scoring, or other modification by the trial authors.”

    From Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents (2021) · cites this paper as Marshall 2000

  • Continuous data from rating scales were included only if the measuring instrument had been described in a peer-reviewed journal, and not if it was written or modified by a trialist for a particular trial.

    “We included continuous data from rating scales only if the measuring instrument had been described in a peer-reviewed journal (Marshall 2000); and not those written or modified by one of the trialists for a particular trial.”
  • Continuous data from rating scales were included only if the measuring instrument had been described in a peer-reviewed journal and was self-report or completed by an independent rater or relative.

    “We included continuous data from rating scales only if the measuring instrument had been described in a peer-reviewed journal (Marshall 2000), and the instrument was either self report or completed by an independent rater or relative (not the therapist) (Li 2010).”

    From Morita therapy for anxiety disorders in adults (2015) · cites this paper as Marshall 2000

  • Modified versions of validated instruments might no longer be considered validated, and use of unpublished measurement scales can introduce bias and inflate treatment effect sizes.

    “Modified versions of validated instruments might no longer be considered validated, and use of unpublished measurement scales can introduce bias and inflate treatment effect sizes.388”
  • Marshall et al. [1] showed that in schizophrenia trials authors were more likely to report that treatment was superior to control when an unpublished instrument was used in the comparison, rather than a published instrument.

    “Marshall et al. [1] showed that in schizophrenia trials authors were more likely to report that treatment was superior to control when an unpublished instrument was used in the comparison, rather than a published instrument.”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 6 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marshall, M., Lockwood, A., Bradley, C., Adams, C., Joy, C., & Fenton, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cochrane (GB)
Corresponding author
Marshall, Max
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2000-03
Volume
176
Issue
3
Pages
249-252
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2023839473
Cited by
870
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 47 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 51 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 58
FWCI
41.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Keywords
publication bias, schizophrenia, randomized controlled trials, treatment superiority, outcome measures, non-pharmacological treatment
MeSH terms
Humans, Peer Review, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Publishing, Schizophrenia, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, 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