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

Lieb, Klaus; Osten-Sacken, Jan von der; Stoffers‐Winterling, Jutta; Reiss, Neele; Barth, Jürgen

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606

Cited by 53 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This can take many forms, but specifically with regards to systematic reviews, there is potential for confirmation bias when authors of reviews are themselves authors of the primary studies and/ or previous systematic reviews on the same topic [60] or have non-financial conflicts of interest [61]. …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionRapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.MethodsReview of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).ResultsAcross all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.ConclusionRR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Selective reporting of outcomes increases risk for biased outcomes and is included in the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. However, selective reporting is a matter of human risk of bias, and there are also other human risk of biases, for example, due to financial or intellectual conflict of interests . The CONSORT criteria were fulfilled in all the 6 RCTs, except for the validated outcome measure.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, selective reporting is a matter of human risk of bias, and there are also other human risk of biases, for example, due to financial or intellectual conflict of interests. 26,27 The CONSORT criteria were fulfilled in all the 6 RCTs, except for the validated outcome measure. However, according to the BM, generalizability of the findings was hampered by several factors.…”

Section: Interpretation − Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity and generalizability of findings of randomized controlled trials on arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee

Malmivaara

2018

Scandinavian Med Sci Sports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The validity and generalizability of evidence from trials on arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for a ruptured meniscus of the knee has been debated in scientific journals. The aim of this paper was to assess the validity and generalizability of evidence for trials on effectiveness of APM by a novel Benchmarking method; to compare this assessment with established assessment methods; and to make an overall assessment of the current evidence on validity and generalizability of findings. Literature search was undertaken to find all randomized controlled trials. The benchmarking method, the Cochrane method for the assessment of validity of RCTs, and CONSORT method for the assessment of generalizability of findings were used. The data were extracted and checked for accuracy twice. Seven RCTs were found, of which 2 were double blinded. The benchmarking method indicated that only one trial, assessing real-world effectiveness, had recruited patients comprehensively from the catchment area and showed clinically important effectiveness for APM. All trials had deficiencies in reporting of baseline characteristics and adherence to interventions. In 5 trials, the crossover to surgery from conservative treatment arm was between 19 and 36 percent. The benchmarking method indicates that APM may be an effective treatment for meticulously selected patients, or when APM is targeted to those patients who do not respond to the conservative treatment. There is a need for more sham-controlled and real-world effectiveness trials reporting comprehensively patient characteristics and adherence to interventions, preferably in a representative sample of patients living in the recruitment area.

show abstract

“…For example, zscore neurofeedback aims to alter brain activity in participants to match an averaged signal (Bekelman & Gross, 2003;Perlis et al, 2005), the expansive pharmaceutical literature (Antonuccio, Danton, & McClanahan, 2003;Rabipour, Delpero, & Raz, 2011), prevalent brain training programs (Underwood, 2016), and to a lesser, but non-negligible extent, research on psychological therapies (Lieb, Osten-Sacken, Stoffers-Winterling, Reiss, & Barth, 2016). Even in the absence of financial interest, moreover, comparative studies across behavioral treatment, psychotherapy, and pharmacology, tend to skew findings towards the specific choice-oftreatment espoused by the authors (Luborsky et al, 1999;Maj, 2008).…”

Section: Animals Respond To Eeg-nf But Do Not Respond To Placebosmentioning

confidence: 99%

The psychology of neurofeedback: Clinical intervention even if applied placebo.

Thibault

Raz

2017

American Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advocates of neurofeedback make bold claims concerning brain regulation, treatment of disorders, and mental health. Decades of research and thousands of peer-reviewed publications support neurofeedback using electroencephalography (EEG-nf); yet, few experiments isolate the act of receiving feedback from a specific brain signal as a necessary precursor to obtain the purported benefits. Moreover, while psychosocial parameters including participant motivation and expectation, rather than neurobiological substrates, seem to fuel clinical improvement across a wide range of disorders, for-profit clinics continue to sprout across North America and Europe. Here, we highlight the tenuous evidence supporting EEG-nf and sketch out the weaknesses of this approach. We challenge classic arguments often articulated by proponents of EEG-nf and underscore how psychologists and mental health professionals stand to benefit from studying the ubiquitous placebo influences that likely drive these treatment outcomes.

show abstract

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

Cited by 53 publications

References 24 publications

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

Validity and generalizability of findings of randomized controlled trials on arthroscopic partial meniscectomy of the knee

The psychology of neurofeedback: Clinical intervention even if applied placebo.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About