Relationship between quality of reports of antidepressant randomized controlled trials and treatment estimates: Systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis

Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology

Volumn 27, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 352-356

  Cipriani, Andrea ^a   Malvini, Lara ^a   Furukawa, Toshiaki A ^b   Barbui, Corrado ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VERONA   (Italy)

^b NAGOYA CITY UNIV MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIDEPRESSANT AGENT; FLUOXETINE;

CLINICAL TRIAL; COCHRANE LIBRARY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; EMBASE; HUMAN; MAJOR DEPRESSION; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; RATING SCALE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ANTIDEPRESSIVE AGENTS; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DEPRESSIVE DISORDER; FLUOXETINE; HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 34447530518     PISSN: 02710749     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/jcp.0b013e3180a9081f     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, et al. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA. 1995;273:408-412.
2. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352:609-613.
3. Tierney JF, Stewart LA. Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34:79-87.
4. Gluud LL. Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:493-501.
5. Emerson JD, Burdick E, Hoaglin DC, et al. An empirical study of the possible relation of treatment differences to quality scores in controlled randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1990;11:339-352.
6. Kjaergard LL, Villumsen J, Gluud C. Reported methodologic quality and discrepancies between large and small randomized trials in meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135:982-989.
7. Balk EM, Bonis PA, Moskowitz H, et al. Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2002;287:2973-2982.
8. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323:42-46.
9. Cipriani A, Barbui C, Brambilla P, et al. Are all antidepressants really the same? The case of fluoxetine: a systematic review. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67:850-864.
10. Landis RJ, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
11. Landis JR, Koch GG. An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics. 1977;33:363-374.
12. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1-12.
13. Moncrieff J, Churchill R, Drummond DC, et al. Development of a quality assessment instrument for trials of treatments for depression and neurosis. Int J Methods Psych Res. 2001;10:126-133.
14. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191-1194.
15. Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ. 2005;330:1056-1057.
16. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Determining sample size and power in clinical trials: the forgotten essential. Semin Reprod Endocrinol. 1996;14:125-131.
17. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Allocation concealment in randomised trials: defending against deciphering. Lancet. 2002;359:614-618.
18. Schulz KF, Grimes DA. Sample size calculations in randomised trials: mandatory and mystical. Lancet. 2005;365:1348-1353.
19. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557-560.
20. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-634.
21. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, et al. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'metaepidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21:1513-1524.
22. Thompson SG, Higgins PT. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med. 2002;21:1559-1573.
23. Barbui C, Cipriani A, Brambilla P, et al. "Wish bias" in antidepressant drug trials? J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;24:126-130.
24. Moher D, Cook JC, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-1900.
25. Kobak KA, Kane JM, Thase ME, et al. Why do clinical trials fail? The problem of measurement error in clinical trials: time to test new paradigms? J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2007;27:1-5.
26. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, et al. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials. 1995;16:62-73.
27. Huwiler-Muntener K, Juni P, Junker C, et al. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA. 2002;287:2801-2804.
28. Greenland S. Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular metaanalytical methods. Am J Epidemiol. 1994;140:290-296.
29. Juni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA. 1999;282:1054-1060.