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.
Jeanne Lenzer, medical investigative journalist, New York, jeanne.lenzer@gmail.com, Shannon Brownlee, senior fellow, New America Foundation, Washington, DC, shannon.brownlee@comcast.net
This weeks headline story about antidepressants highlights the ongoing problem of how study results are often distorted by a failure to access full datasets. Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee report
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
New generation antidepressants arent all theyre cracked up to be. That seems to be the central message in the meta-analysis published this week by Irving Kirsch and colleagues in PLoS-Medicine,1 and it was this message that made the headlines. Kirschs conclusion follows on the heels of similar studies showing that statins are useful in only a small subset of patients taking the drugs2 and earlier studies showing that the safety and performance of cyclo-oxygenase-2 inhibitors seemed better than proved to be the case,3 further reinforcing previous criticisms that regulators in the United Kingdom and the United States are not doing their duty to protect the public from useless and dangerous drugs. But theres another, deeper problem here—a problem that, ironically enough, was highlighted by GlaxoSmithKlines news release stating that Kirschs conclusions are "incorrect" because he evaluated only a "small subset of the total data available." How can regulators, the
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses