Antidepressant paroxetine study 'under-reported data on harms'

ConclusionThis study stands as a warning about how supposedly neutral scientific research papers may mislead readers by presenting findings in a certain way.The differences between the independent analysis published in the BMJ and the 2001 research paper are stark. They cannot both be right. The "authors" of the 2001 paper appear to have picked outcome measures to suit their results, in the way they present evidence of effectiveness. It has subsequently come to light that the first draft paper was not actually written by the 22 academics named on the paper, but by a "ghostwriter" paid by GSK.The study also seems to have under-reported adverse events, even those that were included in the researchers’ clinical study report.The re-analysis does have some potential flaws. The researchers admit to some uncertainty about how to classify adverse events that happened after the end of the main eight-week phase of the trial, which could be seen as either withdrawal effects or effects of the drug. Because the numbers of young people reported as having suicidal behaviour is relatively small, the re-coding of adverse effects has a large impact. It is possible that an alternative coding of adverse effects would change the results again. However, re-coding does not explain why adverse effects from the researchers’ clinical study report did not make it into the 2001 paper. The researchers were also able to look at only 93 of the 275 case reports, because they had ins...
Source: NHS News Feed - Category: Consumer Health News Tags: Medical practice Medication Mental health Pregnancy/child Source Type: news