Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2008;336 (8 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39511.393287.43
Jane Smith, deputy editor, BMJ
jsmith@bmj.com
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Antidepressants continue to dominate this week. Last week a study in PLoS Medicine which claimed that newer antidepressants were mostly no better than placebo (BMJ 2008;336:466, doi: 10.1136/bmj.39503.656852.DB) attracted wide attention in the media and some criticism in both PLoS Medicines rapid responses and our own (www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/336/7642/466#191157).
This week Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee pursue one aspect of that study—its use of a "freedom of information" request to get data from unpublished studies—to examine the issue of publication bias (doi: 10.1136/bmj.39504.662685.0F).They quote a study showing that among trials of antidepressants only 8% of those with negative findings were published compared with 97% of those with positive findings.
Two of the authors of that study, Erick Turner and Robert Rosenthal, write in the BMJ this week about their interpretation of the PLoS Medicine study (doi: 10.1136/bmj.39510.531597.80). They agree that antidepressants are less efficacious than
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses