Misreporting of Results of Research in Psychiatry

Time to publication for results of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Researchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer-reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single-centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single-centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non-industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for-profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non-industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time-lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time-lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review.

FUNDING

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

REGISTRATION

This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2.

Targeted Treatment of Schizophrenia Symptoms as They Manifest, or Continuous Treatment to Reduce the Risk of Psychosis Recurrence

Current pharmacological treatment of schizophrenia employs drugs that interfere with dopamine neurotransmission, aiming to suppress acute exacerbation of psychosis and maintenance treatment to reduce the risk of psychosis recurrence. According to this treatment scheme, available psychotropic drugs intended to treat negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, or anxiety are administered as add-ons to treatment with antipsychotics. However, an alternative treatment scheme proposes a targeted or intermittent treatment approach, by which antipsychotic drugs are administered upon psychosis exacerbation and discontinued upon remission or stabilization, while negative symptoms, cognitive impairment, or anxiety are treated with specific psychotropics as monotherapy. Along these lines, antipsychotics are renewed only in the event of recurrence of psychotic symptoms. This 50-year-old debate between targeted and continuous treatment schemes arises from disagreements about interpreting scientific evidence and discordant views regarding benefit/risk assessment. Among the debate's questions are: (1) what is the percentage of individuals who can maintain stability without antipsychotic maintenance treatment, and what is the percentage of those who exacerbate despite antipsychotic treatment? (2) how to interpret results of placebo-controlled 9- to 18-month-long maintenance trials in a life-long chronic disorder, and how to interpret results of the targeted trials, some of which are open label or not randomized; (3) how to weigh the decreased risk for psychotic recurrence vs the almost certainty of adverse effects on patient's quality of life. Patients' profiles, preferences, and circumstances of the care provision should be considered as the targeted vs continuous treatment options are considered.

A randomized controlled trial of add-on naproxen, simvastatin and their combination for the treatment of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder

This large randomized controlled trial examined the effect of naproxen, simvastatin or both on patients with schizophrenia. This was a large multi-center, twelve-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-arm clinical trial administering naproxen, simvastatin or both to 232 subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The primary outcome was change in PANSS total score. ANCOVA and mixed model analyses of the PANSS total score change showed no significant difference between naproxen and placebo (adjusted p = 0.78), simvastatin and placebo (adjusted p = 0.38) or the combination of naproxen and simvastatin compared to placebo (adjusted p = 0.72). No statistically significant drug-placebo differences were found in the PANSS subscales, CGI or BACS between all groups. There was a near significant improvement in negative symptoms (p = 0.06), and an analysis of the 5 factor PANSS factors analysis found a significant improvement in simvastatin above placebo in withdrawal (p = 0.03). These finding were not significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. A meta-analysis on changes in total PANSS scores in studies on statins in schizophrenia, including the present study together with six other studies showed a significant improvement for statins compared to placebo (Hedges' G of -0.245 (CI= -0.403, -0.086, p = 0.002). When one outlying study which showed particularly strong effects of statins was removed, part of the effect went away. In conclusion, in this study, naproxen and simvastatin alone or in combination were not efficacious in the treatment of symptoms in schizophrenia. However, the meta-analysis of all studies of simvastatin for schizophrenia indicates further research on this topic.

What's Right and Wrong in Preclinical Science: A Matter of Principled Investigation

The discovery of efficacious treatment options for neuropsychiatric conditions is a process that remains in jeopardy. Contributing to the failure of clinical trials, a strong positive bias exists in the reported results of preclinical studies, including in the field of neuroscience. However, despite clear recognition of major factors that lead to bias, efforts to address them have not made much meaningful change, receiving inadequate attention from the scientific community. In truth, little real-world value is currently attached to efforts made to oppose positive bias, and instead-partially driven by competitive conditions-the opposite has become true. Since pressures throughout our system of scientific discovery, particularly those tied to definitions of individual success, hold these damaging practices firmly in place, we urgently need to make changes to the system itself. Such a transformation should include a pivot away from explicit or tacit requirements for statistical significance and clean narratives, particularly in publishing, and should promote a priori power calculations as the determinant of final sample size. These systemic changes must be reinforced and upheld in responsible decisions made by individual scientists concerning the planning, analysis, and presentation of their own research.