Loading…

Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant

Abstract Objectives Publication bias (PB) may seriously compromise inferences from meta-analyses. The aim of this article was to assess the potential effect of small-study effects and PB on the recently estimated relative effectiveness and ranking of pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia. Stu...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical epidemiology 2016, Vol.69, p.161-169
Main Authors: Mavridis, Dimitris, Efthimiou, Orestis, Leucht, Stefan, Salanti, Georgia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3
container_end_page 169
container_issue
container_start_page 161
container_title Journal of clinical epidemiology
container_volume 69
creator Mavridis, Dimitris
Efthimiou, Orestis
Leucht, Stefan
Salanti, Georgia
description Abstract Objectives Publication bias (PB) may seriously compromise inferences from meta-analyses. The aim of this article was to assess the potential effect of small-study effects and PB on the recently estimated relative effectiveness and ranking of pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia. Study Design and Setting We used a recently published network of 167 trials involving 36,871 patients and comparing the effectiveness of 15 antipsychotics and placebo. We used novel visual and statistical methods to explore if smaller trials are associated with larger treatment effects and a selection model to explore if the probability of trial publication is associated with the magnitude of effect. We conducted a network meta-analysis of the published evidence as our primary analysis and used a sensitivity analysis considering low, moderate, and severe selection bias (that corresponds to the number of unpublished trials) with an aim to evaluate robustness of point estimates and ranking. We explored whether placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials are associated with different levels of PB. Results We found that small placebo-controlled trials exaggerated slightly the efficacy of antipsychotics, and PB was not unlikely in the evidence based on placebo-controlled trials; however, ranking of antipsychotics remained robust. Conclusion The total evidence comprises many head-to-head trials that do not appear to be prone to small-study effects or PB, and indirect evidence appears to “wash out” some of the biases in the placebo-controlled trials.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.027
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1758241335</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0895435615002747</els_id><sourcerecordid>3911714561</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2LFDEQhhtR3HX1LywBL156TOWjk76IsvgFCwrqOaTTld3MdqfHpHtgbv5008yswl4UCgLF81ZSed-qugS6AQrN6-1m64YQcRc2jILc0FJMParOQStdy5bB4-qc6lbWgsvmrHqW85ZSUFTJp9UZaxhQKuV59evr0g3B2TlMkXTBZmJjT_Joh6HO89IfCHqPbs5ktDcx-ID9qRP2GDFnMvkimcMuH9ztNAeXSbfMZL7FkEjCwa4gSTbehXhTGqMtr-5JiHubQhE-r554O2R8cTovqh8f3n-_-lRff_n4-erdde2EFnNthQbZeW2tgNYBOi4c0k60Cizl0DvRdA3zTHvUQqum5aCcB-25ENI2Pb-oXh3n7tL0c8E8mzFkh8NgI05LNqCkZgI4l_-DQtsK2kBBXz5At9OSYllkpThrlBC8UM2RcmnKOaE3uxRGmw4GqFntNFtzb6dZ7TS0FFNFeHkav3Qj9n9k9_4V4O0RwPJ1-4DJZBcwOuxDKh6Zfgr_vuPNgxErVSIx3OEB8999TGaGmm9rqNZMgaRFLhT_DQGaytU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1753267443</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Mavridis, Dimitris ; Efthimiou, Orestis ; Leucht, Stefan ; Salanti, Georgia</creator><creatorcontrib>Mavridis, Dimitris ; Efthimiou, Orestis ; Leucht, Stefan ; Salanti, Georgia</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract Objectives Publication bias (PB) may seriously compromise inferences from meta-analyses. The aim of this article was to assess the potential effect of small-study effects and PB on the recently estimated relative effectiveness and ranking of pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia. Study Design and Setting We used a recently published network of 167 trials involving 36,871 patients and comparing the effectiveness of 15 antipsychotics and placebo. We used novel visual and statistical methods to explore if smaller trials are associated with larger treatment effects and a selection model to explore if the probability of trial publication is associated with the magnitude of effect. We conducted a network meta-analysis of the published evidence as our primary analysis and used a sensitivity analysis considering low, moderate, and severe selection bias (that corresponds to the number of unpublished trials) with an aim to evaluate robustness of point estimates and ranking. We explored whether placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials are associated with different levels of PB. Results We found that small placebo-controlled trials exaggerated slightly the efficacy of antipsychotics, and PB was not unlikely in the evidence based on placebo-controlled trials; however, ranking of antipsychotics remained robust. Conclusion The total evidence comprises many head-to-head trials that do not appear to be prone to small-study effects or PB, and indirect evidence appears to “wash out” some of the biases in the placebo-controlled trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0895-4356</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1878-5921</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.027</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26210055</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Antidepressants ; Antipsychotic Agents - therapeutic use ; Antipsychotics ; Bayesian hierarchical model ; Bias ; Epidemiology ; Humans ; Indirect comparison ; Internal Medicine ; Mental disorders ; Network meta-analysis ; Placebo effect ; Psychotropic drugs ; Publication bias ; Publication Bias - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Schizophrenia - drug therapy ; Selection model ; Sensitivity analysis ; Small study effect ; Statistical methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2016, Vol.69, p.161-169</ispartof><rights>Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2016 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Limited Jan 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-1041-4592 ; 0000-0002-0955-7572</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4024,27923,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26210055$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mavridis, Dimitris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Efthimiou, Orestis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leucht, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salanti, Georgia</creatorcontrib><title>Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant</title><title>Journal of clinical epidemiology</title><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><description>Abstract Objectives Publication bias (PB) may seriously compromise inferences from meta-analyses. The aim of this article was to assess the potential effect of small-study effects and PB on the recently estimated relative effectiveness and ranking of pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia. Study Design and Setting We used a recently published network of 167 trials involving 36,871 patients and comparing the effectiveness of 15 antipsychotics and placebo. We used novel visual and statistical methods to explore if smaller trials are associated with larger treatment effects and a selection model to explore if the probability of trial publication is associated with the magnitude of effect. We conducted a network meta-analysis of the published evidence as our primary analysis and used a sensitivity analysis considering low, moderate, and severe selection bias (that corresponds to the number of unpublished trials) with an aim to evaluate robustness of point estimates and ranking. We explored whether placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials are associated with different levels of PB. Results We found that small placebo-controlled trials exaggerated slightly the efficacy of antipsychotics, and PB was not unlikely in the evidence based on placebo-controlled trials; however, ranking of antipsychotics remained robust. Conclusion The total evidence comprises many head-to-head trials that do not appear to be prone to small-study effects or PB, and indirect evidence appears to “wash out” some of the biases in the placebo-controlled trials.</description><subject>Antidepressants</subject><subject>Antipsychotic Agents - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Antipsychotics</subject><subject>Bayesian hierarchical model</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Indirect comparison</subject><subject>Internal Medicine</subject><subject>Mental disorders</subject><subject>Network meta-analysis</subject><subject>Placebo effect</subject><subject>Psychotropic drugs</subject><subject>Publication bias</subject><subject>Publication Bias - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Schizophrenia - drug therapy</subject><subject>Selection model</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Small study effect</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><issn>0895-4356</issn><issn>1878-5921</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkk2LFDEQhhtR3HX1LywBL156TOWjk76IsvgFCwrqOaTTld3MdqfHpHtgbv5008yswl4UCgLF81ZSed-qugS6AQrN6-1m64YQcRc2jILc0FJMParOQStdy5bB4-qc6lbWgsvmrHqW85ZSUFTJp9UZaxhQKuV59evr0g3B2TlMkXTBZmJjT_Joh6HO89IfCHqPbs5ktDcx-ID9qRP2GDFnMvkimcMuH9ztNAeXSbfMZL7FkEjCwa4gSTbehXhTGqMtr-5JiHubQhE-r554O2R8cTovqh8f3n-_-lRff_n4-erdde2EFnNthQbZeW2tgNYBOi4c0k60Cizl0DvRdA3zTHvUQqum5aCcB-25ENI2Pb-oXh3n7tL0c8E8mzFkh8NgI05LNqCkZgI4l_-DQtsK2kBBXz5At9OSYllkpThrlBC8UM2RcmnKOaE3uxRGmw4GqFntNFtzb6dZ7TS0FFNFeHkav3Qj9n9k9_4V4O0RwPJ1-4DJZBcwOuxDKh6Zfgr_vuPNgxErVSIx3OEB8999TGaGmm9rqNZMgaRFLhT_DQGaytU</recordid><startdate>2016</startdate><enddate>2016</enddate><creator>Mavridis, Dimitris</creator><creator>Efthimiou, Orestis</creator><creator>Leucht, Stefan</creator><creator>Salanti, Georgia</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>7U2</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1041-4592</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0955-7572</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>2016</creationdate><title>Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant</title><author>Mavridis, Dimitris ; Efthimiou, Orestis ; Leucht, Stefan ; Salanti, Georgia</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Antidepressants</topic><topic>Antipsychotic Agents - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Antipsychotics</topic><topic>Bayesian hierarchical model</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Indirect comparison</topic><topic>Internal Medicine</topic><topic>Mental disorders</topic><topic>Network meta-analysis</topic><topic>Placebo effect</topic><topic>Psychotropic drugs</topic><topic>Publication bias</topic><topic>Publication Bias - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Schizophrenia - drug therapy</topic><topic>Selection model</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Small study effect</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mavridis, Dimitris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Efthimiou, Orestis</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leucht, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salanti, Georgia</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium &amp; Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health and Medical</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Research Library</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Safety Science and Risk</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mavridis, Dimitris</au><au>Efthimiou, Orestis</au><au>Leucht, Stefan</au><au>Salanti, Georgia</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical epidemiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Epidemiol</addtitle><date>2016</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>69</volume><spage>161</spage><epage>169</epage><pages>161-169</pages><issn>0895-4356</issn><eissn>1878-5921</eissn><abstract>Abstract Objectives Publication bias (PB) may seriously compromise inferences from meta-analyses. The aim of this article was to assess the potential effect of small-study effects and PB on the recently estimated relative effectiveness and ranking of pharmacological treatments for schizophrenia. Study Design and Setting We used a recently published network of 167 trials involving 36,871 patients and comparing the effectiveness of 15 antipsychotics and placebo. We used novel visual and statistical methods to explore if smaller trials are associated with larger treatment effects and a selection model to explore if the probability of trial publication is associated with the magnitude of effect. We conducted a network meta-analysis of the published evidence as our primary analysis and used a sensitivity analysis considering low, moderate, and severe selection bias (that corresponds to the number of unpublished trials) with an aim to evaluate robustness of point estimates and ranking. We explored whether placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials are associated with different levels of PB. Results We found that small placebo-controlled trials exaggerated slightly the efficacy of antipsychotics, and PB was not unlikely in the evidence based on placebo-controlled trials; however, ranking of antipsychotics remained robust. Conclusion The total evidence comprises many head-to-head trials that do not appear to be prone to small-study effects or PB, and indirect evidence appears to “wash out” some of the biases in the placebo-controlled trials.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26210055</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.027</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1041-4592</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0955-7572</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0895-4356
ispartof Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2016, Vol.69, p.161-169
issn 0895-4356
1878-5921
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1758241335
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Antidepressants
Antipsychotic Agents - therapeutic use
Antipsychotics
Bayesian hierarchical model
Bias
Epidemiology
Humans
Indirect comparison
Internal Medicine
Mental disorders
Network meta-analysis
Placebo effect
Psychotropic drugs
Publication bias
Publication Bias - statistics & numerical data
Schizophrenia - drug therapy
Selection model
Sensitivity analysis
Small study effect
Statistical methods
title Publication bias and small-study effects magnified effectiveness of antipsychotics but their relative ranking remained invariant
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T22%3A30%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Publication%20bias%20and%20small-study%20effects%20magnified%20effectiveness%20of%20antipsychotics%20but%20their%20relative%20ranking%20remained%20invariant&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20epidemiology&rft.au=Mavridis,%20Dimitris&rft.date=2016&rft.volume=69&rft.spage=161&rft.epage=169&rft.pages=161-169&rft.issn=0895-4356&rft.eissn=1878-5921&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.027&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3911714561%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c484t-a4815bf8aa419c1ec34ce0b4971a031dc46b62f28fe848769317cf18f3445a6d3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1753267443&rft_id=info:pmid/26210055&rfr_iscdi=true