Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics

A vigorously debated issue in the psychiatric literature is whether long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) show clinical benefit over antipsychotics taken orally. In addressing this question, it is critical that systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments of trial data in a robust...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Accountability in research 2024-12, Vol.31 (1), p.2-13
Main Authors: Cosgrove, Lisa, Mintzes, Barbara, Bursztajn, Harold J., D'Ambrozio, Gianna, Shaughnessy, Allen F.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Antipsychotics
bioethics
commercial interests
conflict of interest
Conflicts of interest
Industry influence
organizational and institutional ethics
research bias
Research design
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A vigorously debated issue in the psychiatric literature is whether long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) show clinical benefit over antipsychotics taken orally. In addressing this question, it is critical that systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments of trial data in a robust way and are free of undue industry influence. In this paper, we present a case analysis in which we identify some of the design problems in a recent systematic review on LAIs vs oral formulations. This case illustrates how evidence syntheses that are shaped by commercial interests may undermine patient-centered models of recovery and care. We offer recommendations that address both the bioethical and research design issues that arise in the systematic review process when researchers have financial conflicts of interest.
ISSN:0898-9621
1545-5815
1545-5815
DOI:10.1080/08989621.2022.2082289