- Framework of problems / Objective
- Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
- Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics
| Ref ID | 1001 |
| First Author | L. Cosgrove |
| Journal | ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2024 |
| URL | https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621.2022.2082289 |
| Keywords |
Harms Mental health Risk of bias Outcomes |
| Problem(s) |
Financial conflicts of interest of review authors Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Summary of Findings | The authors drew attention to the fact that the authors of this systematic review have financial associations with the manufacturers of LAIs and concluded that LAIs “provided significant benefit” compared to oral antipsychotics. They highlight 4 decisions and describe how they could lead to an overestimate of benefit and an underestimation of harms. The decisions were: 1) The inclusion of pre-post and cohort studies and a lack of discussion of how this level of evidence might affect the overall results. 2) A misrepresentation of the profile of adverse events in the body of the paper compared to the data provided in the appendix, which showed that oral administration was less harmful. 3) Failure to account for poorly conducted studies such as performing a sensitivity analysis to exclude studies with a high risk of bias. 4) The outcomes measured were symptoms and hospitalizations, but not other patient oriented outcomes such as Quality of Life and recovery. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | No |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |