Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression?

  • J. Flint (a1), P. Cuijpers (a2), J. Horder (a3), S. L. Koole (a2) and M. R. Munafò (a4) (a5)...

Abstract

Background

Many studies have examined the efficacy of psychotherapy for major depressive disorder (MDD) but publication bias against null results may exist in this literature. However, to date, the presence of an excess of significant findings in this literature has not been explicitly tested.

Method

We used a database of 1344 articles on the psychological treatment of depression, identified through systematic search in PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE and the Cochrane database of randomized trials. From these we identified 149 studies eligible for inclusion that provided 212 comparisons. We tested for an excess of significant findings using the method developed by Ioannidis and Trikalinos (2007), and compared the distribution of p values in this literature with the distribution in the antidepressant literature, where publication bias is known to be operating.

Results

The average statistical power to detect the effect size indicated by the meta-analysis was 49%. A total of 123 comparisons (58%) reported a statistically significant difference between treatment and control groups, but on the basis of the average power observed, we would only have expected 104 (i.e. 49%) to do so. There was therefore evidence of an excess of significance in this literature (p = 0.010). Similar results were obtained when these analyses were restricted to studies including a cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) arm. Finally, the distribution of p values for psychotherapy studies resembled that for published antidepressant studies, where publication bias against null results has already been established.

Conclusions

The small average size of individual psychotherapy studies is only sufficient to detect large effects. Our results indicate an excess of significant findings relative to what would be expected, given the average statistical power of studies of psychotherapy for major depression.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression?
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression?
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution licence .

Corresponding author

* Address for correspondence: Professor M. R. Munafò, School of Experimental Psychology, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol BS8 1TU, UK. (Email: marcus.munafo@bristol.ac.uk)

References

Hide All
Barth, J, Munder, T, Gerger, H, Nuesch, E, Trelle, S, Znoj, H, Juni, P, Cuijpers, P (2013). Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis. PLoS Medicine 10, e1001454.
Button, KS, Ioannidis, JP, Mokrysz, C, Nosek, BA, Flint, J, Robinson, ES, Munafo, MR (2013 a). Confidence and precision increase with high statistical power. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 585.
Button, KS, Ioannidis, JP, Mokrysz, C, Nosek, BA, Flint, J, Robinson, ES, Munafo, MR (2013 b). Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14, 365376.
Clark, DM (2011). Implementing NICE guidelines for the psychological treatment of depression and anxiety disorders: the IAPT experience. International Review of Psychiatry 23, 318327.
Cuijpers, P, Andersson, G, Donker, T, van Straten, A (2011). Psychological treatment of depression: results of a series of meta-analyses. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 65, 354364.
Cuijpers, P, Smit, F, Bohlmeijer, E, Hollon, SD, Andersson, G (2010). Efficacy of cognitive-behavioural therapy and other psychological treatments for adult depression: meta-analytic study of publication bias. British Journal of Psychiatry 196, 173178.
Cuijpers, P, van Straten, A, Andersson, G, van Oppen, P (2008 a). Psychotherapy for depression in adults: a meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 76, 909922.
Cuijpers, P, van Straten, A, van Oppen, P, Andersson, G (2008 b). Are psychological and pharmacologic interventions equally effective in the treatment of adult depressive disorders? A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 69, 16751685.
Elkin, I, Shea, MT, Watkins, JT, Imber, SD, Sotsky, SM, Collins, JF, Glass, DR, Pilkonis, PA, Leber, WR, Docherty, JP, Fiester, SJ, Parloff, MB (1989). National Institute of Mental Health Treatment of Depression Collaborative Research Program. General effectiveness of treatments. Archives General Psychiatry 46, 971982.
Faul, F, Erdfelder, E, Lang, AG, Buchner, A (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods 39, 175191.
Francis, G (2012). Evidence that publication bias contaminated studies relating social class and unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 109, E1587.
Hedges, LV, Olkin, I (1985). Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis. Academic Press: Orlando, FL.
Higgins, JP, Thompson, SG, Deeks, JJ, Altman, DG (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 327, 557560.
Higgins, JPT, Green, S (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration (www.cochrane-handbook.org).
Horder, J, Matthews, P, Waldmann, R (2011). Placebo, prozac and PLoS: significant lessons for psychopharmacology. Journal of Psychopharmacology 25, 12771288.
Ioannidis, JP (2011). Excess significance bias in the literature on brain volume abnormalities. Archives General Psychiatry 68, 773780.
Ioannidis, JP, Trikalinos, TA (2007). An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clinical Trials 4, 245253.
Ioannidis, JPA (2013). Clarifications on the application and interpretation of the test for excess significance and its extensions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 57, 184187.
Kirsch, I, Deacon, BJ, Huedo-Medina, TB, Scoboria, A, Moore, TJ, Johnson, BT (2008). Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Medicine 5, e45.
Lau, J, Ioannidis, JP, Terrin, N, Schmid, CH, Olkin, I (2006). The case of the misleading funnel plot. British Medical Journal 333, 597600.
Murphy, SE, Norbury, R, Godlewska, BR, Cowen, PJ, Mannie, ZM, Harmer, CJ, Munafo, MR (2013). The effect of the serotonin transporter polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) on amygdala function: a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry 18, 512520.
Simmons, JP, Nelson, LD, Simonsohn, U (2011). False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science 22, 13591366.
Turner, EH, Matthews, AM, Linardatos, E, Tell, RA, Rosenthal, R (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine 358, 252260.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Flint Supplementary Material
Table S1

 Word (441 KB)
441 KB

Is there an excess of significant findings in published studies of psychotherapy for depression?

  • J. Flint (a1), P. Cuijpers (a2), J. Horder (a3), S. L. Koole (a2) and M. R. Munafò (a4) (a5)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed