Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation.
Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0184786
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Furukawa TA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Shinohara K;Suganuma AM;Imai H;Takeshima N;Hayasaka Y;Furukawa TA
科学报告的摘要有时会被批评为与相应的全文相比夸大了重要的结果。这样的摘要会误导读者。我们的目的是对精神病学试验中抽象结论的夸大进行系统回顾。我们使用科克伦对照试验登记系统，检索了2014年发表的在其抽象结论中明确声称任何干预措施对精神障碍有效的随机对照试验。抽象结论中的有效性声明分为三种类型：（说明干预优于控制），有限的优越性（干预具有有限的优势）和同等的有效性（声称干预与标准治疗对照的有效性相同），全文结果分为三种类型：显著（所有主要结果在统计学上均显著，有利于干预）、混合（主要结果包括显著和非显著结果）或所有结果均非显著。通过比较这些分类，我们评估每个摘要是否被夸大。我们的主要结果是夸大抽象结论的比例。我们确定并纳入了60项相关试验。60项研究中有20项（33.3%）存在夸大。9份报告仅报告了显著结果，但其主要结局均不显著。大样本量（>300）和在高影响因子（IF>10）期刊上发表与低发生率有关。我们发现，与全文结果相比，三分之一的精神病学研究在其抽象结论中声称对任何精神障碍的有效性，无论是上级控制或等于标准治疗，都被夸大了。建议精神病学文献的读者仔细阅读全文结果，无论摘要中的主张如何。大学医院医学信息网络（UMIN）临床试验注册（UMIN 000018668）
Abstracts of scientific reports are sometimes criticized for exaggerating significant results when compared to the corresponding full texts. Such abstracts can mislead the readers. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of overstatements in abstract conclusions in psychiatry trials. We searched for randomized controlled trials published in 2014 that explicitly claimed effectiveness of any intervention for mental disorders in their abstract conclusion, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Claims of effectiveness in abstract conclusion were categorized into three types: superiority (stating superiority of intervention to control), limited superiority (intervention has limited superiority), and equal efficactiveness (claiming equal effectiveness of intervention with standard treatment control), and full text results into three types: significant (all primary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of the intervention), mixed (primary outcomes included both significant and non-significant results), or all results non-significant. By comparing these classifications, we assessed whether each abstract was overstated. Our primary outcome was the proportion of overstated abstract conclusions. We identified and included 60 relevant trials. 20 out of 60 studies (33.3%) showed overstatements. Nine reports reported only significant results although none of their primary outcomes were significant. Large sample size (>300) and publication in high impact factor (IF>10) journals were associated with low occurrence of overstatements. We found that one in three psychiatry studies claiming effectiveness in their abstract conclusion, either superior to control or equal to standard treatment, for any mental disorders were overstated in comparison with the full text results. Readers of the psychiatry literature are advised to scrutinize the full text results regardless of the claims in the abstract. University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000018668)
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.h6467
发表时间：
2015-12-14
期刊：
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Vinkers CH;Tijdink JK;Otte WM
通讯作者：
Otte WM
影响因子：
4.2
作者：
Brigham, Gregory S.;Slesnick, Natasha;Somoza, Eugene
通讯作者：
Somoza, Eugene
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Knueppel, Hannes;Metz, Courtney;Strech, Daniel
通讯作者：
Strech, Daniel
影响因子：
7.2
作者：
Melville, Jennifer L.;Reed, Susan D.;Katon, Wayne
通讯作者：
Katon, Wayne
DOI：
10.1097/00002060-200210000-00011
发表时间：
2002-10-01
影响因子：
3
作者：
Burke, DT;Judelson, AL;Latta, D
通讯作者：
Latta, D