Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Impact of Reporting Bias in Network Meta-Analysis of Antidepressant Placebo-Controlled Trials

By Ludovic Trinquart, Adeline Abbé and Philippe Ravaud
Topics: Research Article
Publisher: Public Library of Science
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PubMed Central

Suggested articles


  1. (2009). A case study of multiple-treatments meta-analysis demonstrates that covariates should be considered.
  2. (2004). A taxpayer-funded clinical trials registry and results database.
  3. (2011). Adjusting for publication biases across similar interventions performed well when compared with gold standard data.
  4. (2010). Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications.
  5. (2004). Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons.
  6. (2008). Comparative benefits and harms of second-generation antidepressants: background paper for the American College of Physicians.
  7. (2009). Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.
  8. (2005). Correction/Clarification about FDA Review Documents.
  9. (2009). Das A
  10. (2010). Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.
  11. (2012). Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses.
  12. (2008). Evaluation of networks of randomized trials.
  13. (2011). Excess significance bias in the literature on brain volume abnormalities.
  14. (2008). Exploring the geometry of treatment networks.
  15. (2007). Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others.
  16. Fontanarosa PB (2010) Ensuring integrity in industry-sponsored research: primum non nocere, revisited.
  17. (2010). Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial.
  18. (2010). Health-care policy. To reform U.S. health care, start with systematic reviews.
  19. (2005). Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.
  20. (2010). Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One 5: e11054. Impact of Reporting Bias
  21. (2010). Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials.
  22. (2009). Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research.
  23. (2012). Lack of Head-to-head Trials and Fair Control Arms: Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis.
  24. (2008). Medicine. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials.
  25. (2009). Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews.
  26. (2010). Missing clinical trial data: setting the record straight.
  27. (2009). Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease.
  28. (2002). Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons.
  29. (2009). New, but not improved? Incorporating comparative-effectiveness information into FDA labeling.
  30. (2009). Novel methods to deal with publication biases: secondary analysis of antidepressant trials in the FDA trial registry database and related journal publications.
  31. (2009). Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use.
  32. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.
  33. (2009). Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database Syst Rev MR000006.
  34. (2008). Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis.
  35. (2010). Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials.
  36. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.
  37. (2010). Registering Clinical Trial Results. JAMA:
  38. (2008). Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation.
  39. (2008). Reporting bias. In:
  40. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.
  41. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
  42. (2008). Stroke prevention–insights from incoherence.
  43. (2007). The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey.
  44. (2009). The Need for Improved Access to FDA Reviews.
  45. (2006). What are the implications of optimism bias in clinical research?
  46. (1996). Whitehead A

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.