other studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/#c18
that view has been challenged
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592645/
the authors retrieved unpublished information for 274 (52%) of the trials included in the meta-analysis.
still huge uncertainties
lots of unpublished data – known publication bias
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa065779
eg a study 10 years ago NEJM – found trials done but not published
94% of trials published showed a positive result
but FDA analysis trying to track and include unpublished trials – 51% positive
2014 BMJ paper – concluded for duloxetine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24899650
clinical study reports data on major harms that were unavailable in journal articles and in trial registry reports. There were inconsistencies between protocols and clinical study reports and within clinical study reports. Clinical study reports should be used as the data source for systematic reviews of drugs, but they should first be checked against protocols and within themselves for accuracy and consistency.
so cochrane says
http://www.cochrane.org/CD007954/DEPRESSN_antidepressants-versus-placebo-for-depression-in-primary-care
TCAs ranged from 7 to 16 {median NNT 9} patient expected event rate ranged from 63% to 26% respectively) and for SSRIs from 7 to 8 {median NNT 7} (patient expected event rate ranged from 48% to 42% respectively)
debate about how useful small improvements are on assessment scales in real lifehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1551714415300033
clinical significance vs statistical significance
ANTLER trial in Bristol http://www.ucl.ac.uk/psychiatry/research/antler/info-gp-practices
Comments are closed.