Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 26;6(4):e010606.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010606.

Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review

Klaus Lieb  1 , Jan von der Osten-Sacken  1 , Jutta Stoffers-Winterling  1 , Neele Reiss  2 , Jürgen Barth  3
Affiliations

Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review

Klaus Lieb et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To explore conflicts of interest (COI) and their reporting in systematic reviews of psychological therapies, and to evaluate spin in the conclusions of the reviews.

Methods: MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2013 that assessed effects of psychological therapies for anxiety, depressive or personality disorders, and included at least one randomised controlled trial. Required COI disclosure by journal, disclosed COI by review authors, and the inclusion of own primary studies by review authors were extracted. Researcher allegiance, that is, that researchers concluded favourably about the interventions they have studied, as well as spin, that is, differences between results and conclusions of the reviews, were rated by 2 independent raters.

Results: 936 references were retrieved, 95 reviews fulfilled eligibility criteria. 59 compared psychological therapies with other forms of psychological therapies, and 36 psychological therapies with pharmacological interventions. Financial, non-financial, and personal COI were disclosed in 22, 4 and 1 review, respectively. 2 of 86 own primary studies of review authors included in 34 reviews were disclosed by review authors. In 15 of the reviews, authors showed an allegiance effect to the evaluated psychological therapy that was never disclosed. Spin in review conclusions was found in 27 of 95 reviews. Reviews with a conclusion in favour of psychological therapies (vs pharmacological interventions) were at high risk for a spin in conclusions (OR=8.31 (1.41 to 49.05)). Spin was related in trend to the inclusion of own primary studies in the systematic review (OR=2.08 (CI 0.83 to 5.18) p=0.11) and researcher allegiance (OR=2.63 (0.84 to 8.16) p=0.16).

Conclusions: Non-financial COI, especially the inclusion of own primary studies into reviews and researcher allegiance, are frequently seen in systematic reviews of psychological therapies and need more transparency and better management.

Keywords: bias; conflict of interest; psychotherapy; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of study selection. RCT, randomised control trial.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Risk of spin in review conclusions in comparison with different treatments.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Thompson DF. The challenge of conflict of interest in medicine. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2009;103:136–40. 10.1016/j.zefq.2009.02.021 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lo B, Field MJ, eds. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice, Institute of Medicine, 2009. - PubMed
    1. Campbell EG. Doctors and drug companies—scrutinizing influential relationships. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1796–7. 10.1056/NEJMp078141 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Campbell EG, Rao SR, DesRoches CM et al. . Physician professionalism and changes in physician-industry relationships from 2004 to 2009. Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1820–6. 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.383 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. . Institutional academic industry relationships. JAMA 2007;298:1779–86. 10.1001/jama.298.15.1779 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms