Safety Reporting in Randomized Trials of Mental Health Interventions

Panagiotis N. Papanikolaou · Rachel C. Churchill · Kristian Wahlbeck · John P. A. Ioannidis · The EU-PSI Project

84 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Psychiatry

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to evaluate the adequacy of the reporting of safety information in publications of randomized trials of mental-health-related interventions. METHOD: The authors randomly selected 200 entries from the PsiTri registry of mental-health-related controlled trials. This yielded 142 randomized trials that were analyzed for adequacy and relative emphasis of their content on safety issues. They examined drug trials as well as trials of other types of interventions. RESULTS: Across the 142 eligible trials, 103 involved drugs. Twenty-five of the 142 trials had at least 100 randomly chosen subjects and at least 50 subjects in a study arm. Among drug trials, only 21.4% had adequate reporting of clinical adverse events, and only 16.5% had adequate reporting of laboratory-determined toxicity, while 32.0% reported both the numbers and the reasons for withdrawals due to toxicity in each arm. On average, drug trials devoted 1/10 of a page in their results sections to safety, and 58.3% devoted more space to the names and affiliations of authors than to safety. None of the trials of nondrug interventions had adequate or even partially adequate reporting of either clinical adverse events or laboratory-determined toxicity. In multivariate modeling, long-term trials and trials conducted in the United States devoted even less space to safety, while schizophrenia trials devoted more space to safety than did trials in other areas. CONCLUSIONS: Safety reporting is largely neglected across trials of mental-health-related interventions, thus hindering the assessment of risk-benefit ratios for rational decision making in mental health care.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.

References

1981Reporting results of cancer treatment 2001The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration 2001Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas.1995An evidence based approach to individualising treatment 1999Reporting of Adverse Effects in Clinical Trials Should Be Improved 2001Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey 2001Incomplete evidence: the inadequacy of databases in tracing published adverse drug reactions in clinical trials 1998Reporting of safety data from randomised trials

Cited by

2008Perfect Study, Poor Evidence: Interpretation of Biases Preceding Study Design 2023Reporting of harms in clinical trials of esketamine in depression: a systematic review 2005Reporting of Harm in Randomized, Controlled Trials of Nonpharmacologic Treatment for Rheumatic Disease 2015Adverse event methods were heterogeneous and insufficiently reported in randomized trials on persistent depressive disorder 2006Meta-analysis in public health: potentials and problems

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.