Cargando…

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

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 e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lieb, Klaus, von der Osten-Sacken, Jan, Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta, Reiss, Neele, Barth, Jürgen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27118287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606
_version_ 1782430154439524352
author Lieb, Klaus
von der Osten-Sacken, Jan
Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta
Reiss, Neele
Barth, Jürgen
author_facet Lieb, Klaus
von der Osten-Sacken, Jan
Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta
Reiss, Neele
Barth, Jürgen
author_sort Lieb, Klaus
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4853969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48539692016-05-06 Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review Lieb, Klaus von der Osten-Sacken, Jan Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta Reiss, Neele Barth, Jürgen BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC4853969/ /pubmed/27118287 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Lieb, Klaus
von der Osten-Sacken, Jan
Stoffers-Winterling, Jutta
Reiss, Neele
Barth, Jürgen
Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
title Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
title_full Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
title_fullStr Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
title_short Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
title_sort conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review
topic Medical Publishing and Peer Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4853969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27118287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606
work_keys_str_mv AT liebklaus conflictsofinterestandspininreviewsofpsychologicaltherapiesasystematicreview
AT vonderostensackenjan conflictsofinterestandspininreviewsofpsychologicaltherapiesasystematicreview
AT stofferswinterlingjutta conflictsofinterestandspininreviewsofpsychologicaltherapiesasystematicreview
AT reissneele conflictsofinterestandspininreviewsofpsychologicaltherapiesasystematicreview
AT barthjurgen conflictsofinterestandspininreviewsofpsychologicaltherapiesasystematicreview