1,721,014 research outputs found
Defending psychiatry or defending the trivial effects of therapeutic interventions? A citation content analysis of an influential paper
No full textAims. Leucht et al. in 2012 described an overview of meta-analyses of the efficacy of medication in psychiatry and general medicine, concluding that psychiatric drugs were not less efficacious than other drugs. Our goal was to explore the dissemination of this highly cited paper, which combined a thought provoking message with a series of caveats.Methods. We conducted a prospectively registered citation content analysis. All papers published before June 1st citing the target paper were independently rated by two investigators. The primary outcome coded dichotomously was whether the citation was used to justify a small or modest effect observed for a given treatment. Secondary outcomes regarded mentioning any caveats when citing the target paper, the point the citation was making (treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine, others), the type of condition (psychiatric, medical or both), specific disease, treatment category and specific type. We also extracted information about the type of citing paper, financial conflict of interest (COI) declared and any industry support. The primary analysis was descriptive by tabulating the extracted variables, with numbers and percentages where appropriate. Co-authorship networks were constructed to identify possible clusters of citing authors. An exploratory univariate logistic regression was used to explore the relationship between each of a subset of pre-specified secondary outcomes and the primary outcome.Results. We identified 135 records and retrieved and analysed 120. Sixty-three (53%) quoted Leucht et al.'s paper to justify a small or modest effect observed for a given therapy, and 113 (94%) did not mention any caveats. Seventy-two (60%) used the citation to claim that treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine; 110 (91%) paper were about psychiatric conditions. Forty-one (34%) papers quoted it without pointing towards any specific treatment category, 28 (23%) were about antidepressants, 18 (15%) about antipsychotics. Forty (33%) of the citing papers included data. COIs were reported in 55 papers (46%). Univariate and multivariate regressions showed an association between a quote justifying small or modest effects and the point that treatment effectiveness in psychiatry closely resembles that in general medicine.Conclusions. Our evaluation revealed an overwhelmingly uncritical reception and seemed to indicate that beyond defending psychiatry as a discipline, the paper by Leucht et al. served to lend support and credibility to a therapeutic myth: trivial effects of mental health interventions, most often drugs, are to be expected and therefore accepted. Protocol registration: https://osf.io/9dqat
Meta-research studies should improve and evaluate their own data sharing practices
No full textData sharing is gradually becoming a requirement across all fields of science, owing to its key benefits in verifying the reproducibility of findings and reusing existent data for new purposes. Although metaresearch studies are complex, time-consuming, and hinge on the availability of data produced and curated by others, there has been little focus on how they make their own data available. This is in stark contrast to the heightened attention data sharing has received in clinical research. Yet, as secondary data users par excellence, metaresearchers are ethically bound to both improving and evaluating data sharing practices and correctly sharing their own data. We contrast particularities of data sharing in metaresearch and clinical research, such as benefits, barriers, and inadequate and potentially pervasive sharing practices. We conclude with an array of concrete and tailored recommendations for improvement
Treating Bipolar Depression Using Psilocybin—Validity Threats Regarding Efficacy and Safety: To the Editor
No full text
Publication by association: How the COVID-19 pandemic has shown relationships between authors and editorial board members in the field of infectious diseases
Full text linkDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, the rush to scientific and political judgements on the merits of hydroxychloroquine was fuelled by dubious papers which may have been published because the authors were not independent from the practices of the journals in which they appeared. This example leads us to consider a new type of illegitimate publishing entity, 'self-promotion journals' which could be deployed to serve the instrumentalisation of productivity-based metrics, with a ripple effect on decisions about promotion, tenure and grant funding, but also on the quality of manuscripts that are disseminated to the medical community and form the foundation of evidence-based medicine
Preserving equipoise and performing randomized trials for COVID-19 social distancing interventions
Full text linkIn the COVID-19 a large number of non-pharmaceutical measures that pertain to the wider group of social distancing interventions (e.g. public gathering bans, closures of schools, workplaces and all but essential business, mandatory stay-at-home policies, travel restrictions, border closures, and others) have been deployed. Their urgent deployment was defended with modeling and observational data of spurious credibility. There is major debate on whether these measures are effective and there is also uncertainty about the magnitude of the harms that these measures might induce. Given that there is equipoise for how, when, and if specific social distancing interventions for COVID-19 should be applied and removed/modified during reopening, we argue that informative randomized controlled trials are needed. Only a few such randomized trials have already been conducted, but the ones done to-date demonstrate that a randomized trials agenda is feasible. We discuss here issues of study design choice, selection of comparators (intervention and controls), choice of outcomes and additional considerations for the conduct of such trials. We also discuss and refute common counter-arguments against the conduct of such trials
- …
