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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |