Does publication bias inflate the apparent efficacy of psychological treatment for major depressive disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis of US national institutes of health-funded trials

Background The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression. Methods and Findings We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively. Conclusion The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression

Use of erythromycin for the treatment of severe chronic constipation in children

The efficacy of erythromycin was assessed in the treatment of 14 children aged 4 to 13 years with refractory chronic constipation, and presenting megarectum and fecal impaction. A double-blind, placebo- controlled, crossover study was conducted at the Pediatric Gastroenterology Outpatient Clinic of the University Hospital. The patients were randomized to receive placebo for 4 weeks followed by erythromycin estolate, 20 mg kg-1 day-1, divided into four oral doses for another 4 weeks, or vice versa. Patient outcome was assessed according to a clinical score from 12 (most severe clinical condition) to 0 (complete recovery). At enrollment in the study and on the occasion of follow-up medical visits at two-week intervals, patient score and laxative requirements were recorded. During the first 30 days, the mean ± SD clinical score for the erythromycin group (N = 6) decreased from 8.2 ± 2.3 to 2.2 ± 1.0 while the score for the placebo group (N = 8) decreased from 7.8 ± 2.1 to 2.9 ± 2.8. During the second crossover phase, the score for patients on erythromycin ranged from 2.9 ± 2.8 to 2.4 ± 2.1 and the score for the patients on placebo worsened from 2.2 ± 1.0 to 4.3 ± 2.3. There was a significant improvement in score when patients were on erythromycin (P < 0.01). Mean laxative requirement was lower when patients ingested erythromycin (P < 0.05). No erythromycin-related side effects occurred. Erythromycin was useful in this group of severely constipated children. A larger trial is needed to fully ascertain the prokinetic efficacy of this drug as an adjunct in the treatment of severe constipation in children