← Previous Post: | Next Post:

 

“A meta-analysis (pooled analysis) of the published studies found a small but significant improvement in repetitive behaviors, including obsessions and compulsions, among autistic kids treated with SSRIs. When the unpublished studies were included, that benefit vanished.”

Happy face research articles get published; sad face perish. “Positive studies are exciting and potentially groundbreaking. Negative studies are not particularly exciting,” and tend not to get published in the scientific journals, a pediatrics professor explains in an editorial in one such journal.

Indeed, it’s difficult to get hold of the results of studies showing that this or that drug or class of drugs has no effect on a condition:

Current U.S. law requires that investigators submit a summary of the results of drug trials on ClinicalTrials.gov, a national registry of clinical studies. But often, researchers don’t submit their results, and the information is never published on the government website…

After all, the drug market has hundreds of millions of anti-depressant pills to sell, and, if you’re a researcher, you have a career to make.

Things only begin to get real when someone actually makes an effort to do a meta-analysis.

Margaret Soltan, April 23, 2012 10:34AM
Posted in: march of science

Trackback URL for this post:
https://www.margaretsoltan.com/wp-trackback.php?p=35622

One Response to ““A meta-analysis (pooled analysis) of the published studies found a small but significant improvement in repetitive behaviors, including obsessions and compulsions, among autistic kids treated with SSRIs. When the unpublished studies were included, that benefit vanished.””

  1. MattF Says:

    I’ll note that ‘meta-analysis’ is not a generic term in statistics– it signifies a fairly specific set of post-publication data-analysis procedures:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis

Comment on this Entry

Latest UD posts at IHE

Archives

Categories