Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, 3rd Floor, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Room 2C, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, HSC 2U1, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada; Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada.
Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:155-63. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021. Epub 2015 Sep 21.
To identify the impact of industry involvement in the publication and interpretation of meta-analyses of antidepressant trials in depression.
Using MEDLINE, we identified all meta-analyses evaluating antidepressants for depression published in January 2007-March 2014. We extracted data pertaining to author affiliations, conflicts of interest, and whether the conclusion of the abstract included negative statements on whether the antidepressant(s) were effective or safe.
We identified 185 eligible meta-analyses. Fifty-four meta-analyses (29%) had authors who were employees of the assessed drug manufacturer, and 147 (79%) had some industry link (sponsorship or authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest). Only 58 meta-analyses (31%) had negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses including an author who were employees of the manufacturer of the assessed drug were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses [1/54 (2%) vs. 57/131 (44%); P < 0.001].
There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts. Our findings add a note of caution for meta-analyses with ties to the manufacturers of the assessed products.
确定产业参与对评估抗抑郁药物临床试验的荟萃分析的发表和解释的影响。
使用 MEDLINE，我们确定了所有 2007 年 1 月至 2014 年 3 月发表的评估抗抑郁药治疗抑郁症的荟萃分析。我们提取了与作者隶属关系、利益冲突以及摘要结论中是否包含有关抗抑郁药是否有效或安全的负面声明相关的数据。
我们确定了 185 篇合格的荟萃分析。54 篇荟萃分析（29%）的作者是评估药物制造商的员工，147 篇（79%）有某种产业联系（赞助或作者是产业员工和/或有利益冲突）。只有 58 篇荟萃分析（31%）在摘要的结论性陈述中有负面声明。包括作者是评估药物制造商员工的荟萃分析，对药物的负面声明的可能性比其他荟萃分析低 22 倍[1/54（2%）比 57/131（44%）；P < 0.001]。
大量发表了关于抗抑郁药治疗抑郁症的荟萃分析，这些分析由产业撰写或与产业有关联，而且它们几乎从不报告摘要中有关抗抑郁药的任何警告。我们的研究结果为与评估产品制造商有联系的荟萃分析增添了一份警示。
