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
. 2017 Sep 13;12(9):e0184786.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184786. eCollection 2017.

Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation

Kiyomi Shinohara  1 , Aya M Suganuma  1 , Hissei Imai  1 , Nozomi Takeshima  1 , Yu Hayasaka  1 , Toshi A Furukawa  1
Affiliations

Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation

Kiyomi Shinohara et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Objective: 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.

Methods: 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.

Results: 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.

Conclusions: 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.

Trial registration: University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000018668).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: KS has received grant from Japan Primary Care Association. TAF has received lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Meiji, Mitsubishi-Tanabe, MSD and Pfizer and consultancy fees from Takeda Science Foundation. He has received research support from Mochida and Mitsubishi-Tanabe. AMS, HI, NT, YH have declared that no competing interests exist. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow chart of assessment of selected studies.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Definitions of overstatement in abstract conclusion.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Flow chart of study selection.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Relation between sample size, impact factor of journal, and overstatements in ‘superiority’ and ‘limited superiority’ trials.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Burke DT, Judelson AL, Schneider JC, DeVito MC, Latta D. Reading habits of practicing physiatrists. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002;81(10):779–87. Epub 2002/10/04. doi: 10.1097/01.PHM.0000027420.36815.3F . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kurata K, Morioka T, Yokoi K, Matsubayashi M. Remarkable growth of open access in the biomedical field: analysis of PubMed articles from 2006 to 2010. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e60925 Epub 2013/05/10. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060925 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC3641021. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Vinkers CH, Tijdink JK, Otte WM. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. BMJ. 2015;351:h6467 Epub 2015/12/17. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h6467 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC4677695. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e20 Epub 2008/01/25. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020 ; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC2211558. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–64. Epub 2010/05/27. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651 . - DOI - PubMed