@article{eprints3603,
            year = {2016},
         journal = {The British Journal of Psychiatry},
            note = {PMID: 27810891},
           title = {(Review article) Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: meta-analysis},
          author = {Ioana A. Cristea and Claudio Gentili and Pietro Pietrini and Pim Cuijpers},
       publisher = {The Royal College of Psychiatrists},
             url = {http://eprints.imtlucca.it/3603/},
        abstract = {Background:Sponsorship bias has never been investigated for non-pharmacological treatments like psychotherapy.AimsWe examined industry funding and author financial conflict of interest (COI) in randomised controlled trials directly comparing psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy in depression.Method: We conducted a meta-analysis with subgroup comparisons for industry v. non-industry-funded trials, and respectively for trial reports with author financial COI v. those without.Results: In total, 45 studies were included. In most analyses, pharmacotherapy consistently showed significant effectiveness over psychotherapy, g = -0.11 (95\% CI -0.21 to -0.02) in industry-funded trials. Differences between industry and non-industry-funded trials were significant, a result only partly confirmed in sensitivity analyses. We identified five instances where authors of the original article had not reported financial COI.ConclusionsIndustry-funded trials for depression appear to subtly favour pharmacotherapy over psychotherapy. Disclosure of all financial ties with the pharmaceutical industry should be encouraged.}
}