TY  - JOUR
AV  - none
SN  - 0007-1250
JF  - The British Journal of Psychiatry
N2  - 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.
ID  - eprints3603
Y1  - 2016///
N1  - PMID: 27810891
TI  - (Review article) Sponsorship bias in the comparative efficacy of psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy for adult depression: meta-analysis
UR  - http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/early/2016/10/20/bjp.bp.115.179275
PB  - The Royal College of Psychiatrists
A1  - Cristea, Ioana A.
A1  - Gentili, Claudio
A1  - Pietrini, Pietro
A1  - Cuijpers, Pim
ER  -