Salvaging psychotherapy research: A manifesto

James C Coyne, Robin Niels Kok

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

3 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Recognition of the unreliability of findings in the biomedical literature, and especially pharmaceutical trials has led to a number of reforms. These include reporting preregistration of protocols for clinical trials and meta-analysis, reporting standards and making data available to others for all clinical trials, as well as recognition of the influence of conflicts of interest. These improvements are only partially and inconsistently reflected in the literature evaluating psychotherapies. The psychotherapy literature is currently of too poor quality to provide a reliable guide to clinicians, consumers, and policymakers. The literature is dominated by underpowered trials with high risk of bias producing positive effects at a statistically improbable rate. Meta-analyses that are poorly conducted with undisclosed conflicts of interest compound these problems. A number of reforms are proposed. These include accelerating adoption of those already occurring in the pharmaceutical literature. Additionally, psychotherapy research should parallel the orderly sequence of treatment development seen in the pharmaceutical literature. Phase III trials providing the effect sizes of treatments should not be conducted until the acceptability of treatment and the feasibility of accruing sufficient numbers of patients are established. The role of investigator allegiance as a potential and potent source of conflict of interest needs to be recognized. Yet, enforcement of existing standards could counter many of the deficiencies of the current literature, but such enforcement may only come with pressures emanating from outside the field of psychotherapy.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies
Vol/bind14
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)105-124
Antal sider20
ISSN2360-0853
StatusUdgivet - 2014
Udgivet eksterntJa

Fingeraftryk

Psychotherapy
Conflict of Interest
Research
Meta-Analysis
Clinical Trials
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Research Personnel

Citer dette

@article{916e10ea9300448bbaa478b0aed7f790,
title = "Salvaging psychotherapy research: A manifesto",
abstract = "Recognition of the unreliability of findings in the biomedical literature, and especially pharmaceutical trials has led to a number of reforms. These include reporting preregistration of protocols for clinical trials and meta-analysis, reporting standards and making data available to others for all clinical trials, as well as recognition of the influence of conflicts of interest. These improvements are only partially and inconsistently reflected in the literature evaluating psychotherapies. The psychotherapy literature is currently of too poor quality to provide a reliable guide to clinicians, consumers, and policymakers. The literature is dominated by underpowered trials with high risk of bias producing positive effects at a statistically improbable rate. Meta-analyses that are poorly conducted with undisclosed conflicts of interest compound these problems. A number of reforms are proposed. These include accelerating adoption of those already occurring in the pharmaceutical literature. Additionally, psychotherapy research should parallel the orderly sequence of treatment development seen in the pharmaceutical literature. Phase III trials providing the effect sizes of treatments should not be conducted until the acceptability of treatment and the feasibility of accruing sufficient numbers of patients are established. The role of investigator allegiance as a potential and potent source of conflict of interest needs to be recognized. Yet, enforcement of existing standards could counter many of the deficiencies of the current literature, but such enforcement may only come with pressures emanating from outside the field of psychotherapy.",
keywords = "Confirmatory bias, Conflict of interest, CONSORT, Investigator allegiance, Meta-analysis, Reporting standards, meta-science",
author = "Coyne, {James C} and Kok, {Robin Niels}",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
pages = "105--124",
journal = "Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies",
issn = "2360-0853",
publisher = "International Institute for the Advanced Studies of Psychotherapy and Applied Mental Health",
number = "2",

}

Salvaging psychotherapy research : A manifesto. / Coyne, James C; Kok, Robin Niels.

I: Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies, Bind 14, Nr. 2, 2014, s. 105-124.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Salvaging psychotherapy research

T2 - A manifesto

AU - Coyne, James C

AU - Kok, Robin Niels

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Recognition of the unreliability of findings in the biomedical literature, and especially pharmaceutical trials has led to a number of reforms. These include reporting preregistration of protocols for clinical trials and meta-analysis, reporting standards and making data available to others for all clinical trials, as well as recognition of the influence of conflicts of interest. These improvements are only partially and inconsistently reflected in the literature evaluating psychotherapies. The psychotherapy literature is currently of too poor quality to provide a reliable guide to clinicians, consumers, and policymakers. The literature is dominated by underpowered trials with high risk of bias producing positive effects at a statistically improbable rate. Meta-analyses that are poorly conducted with undisclosed conflicts of interest compound these problems. A number of reforms are proposed. These include accelerating adoption of those already occurring in the pharmaceutical literature. Additionally, psychotherapy research should parallel the orderly sequence of treatment development seen in the pharmaceutical literature. Phase III trials providing the effect sizes of treatments should not be conducted until the acceptability of treatment and the feasibility of accruing sufficient numbers of patients are established. The role of investigator allegiance as a potential and potent source of conflict of interest needs to be recognized. Yet, enforcement of existing standards could counter many of the deficiencies of the current literature, but such enforcement may only come with pressures emanating from outside the field of psychotherapy.

AB - Recognition of the unreliability of findings in the biomedical literature, and especially pharmaceutical trials has led to a number of reforms. These include reporting preregistration of protocols for clinical trials and meta-analysis, reporting standards and making data available to others for all clinical trials, as well as recognition of the influence of conflicts of interest. These improvements are only partially and inconsistently reflected in the literature evaluating psychotherapies. The psychotherapy literature is currently of too poor quality to provide a reliable guide to clinicians, consumers, and policymakers. The literature is dominated by underpowered trials with high risk of bias producing positive effects at a statistically improbable rate. Meta-analyses that are poorly conducted with undisclosed conflicts of interest compound these problems. A number of reforms are proposed. These include accelerating adoption of those already occurring in the pharmaceutical literature. Additionally, psychotherapy research should parallel the orderly sequence of treatment development seen in the pharmaceutical literature. Phase III trials providing the effect sizes of treatments should not be conducted until the acceptability of treatment and the feasibility of accruing sufficient numbers of patients are established. The role of investigator allegiance as a potential and potent source of conflict of interest needs to be recognized. Yet, enforcement of existing standards could counter many of the deficiencies of the current literature, but such enforcement may only come with pressures emanating from outside the field of psychotherapy.

KW - Confirmatory bias

KW - Conflict of interest

KW - CONSORT

KW - Investigator allegiance

KW - Meta-analysis

KW - Reporting standards

KW - meta-science

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:84932080776

VL - 14

SP - 105

EP - 124

JO - Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies

JF - Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies

SN - 2360-0853

IS - 2

ER -