Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: meta-analysis
Item Type
Language
English
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sponsorship bias has never been investigated for non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy. AIMS: We examined industry funding and author financial conflict of interest (COI) in randomised controlled trials directly comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in depression. METHOD: We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons for industry v. non-industry-funded trials, and respectively for trial reports with author financial COI v. those without. RESULTS: In total, 45 studies were included. In most analyses, pharmacotherapy consistently showed significant effectiveness over psychotherapy, g = -0.11 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.02) in industry-funded trials. Differences between industry and non-industry-funded trials were significant, a result only partly confirmed in sensitivity analyses. We identified five instances where authors of the original article had not reported financial COI. CONCLUSIONS: Industry-funded trials for depression appear to subtly favour pharmacotherapy over psychotherapy. Disclosure of all financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged.
Subject
Humans
Conflict of Interest
Drug Industry
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Antidepressive Agents
Depressive Disorder
Psychotherapy
Publication Title
Publication Year
2017
Publication Date
2017
Journal abreviation
Br J Psychiatry
Source
PMID: 27810891 PubMed
License
ISSN
1472-1465
Link Attachment
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27810891
Physical Description
vol. 210, n. 1, pp. 16-23
Short Title
Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression