The URL for "Listening to Meta-Analysis but Hearing Bias" didn't come up as a link in my last post, but can be accessed by copy-and-paste into Google. (TInyURL doesn't work, probably because the URL doesn't start with http or www.)
file:///C:/Users/dell/Documents/C%20Files/MISC%20PSYCHIATRY/Drugs%20and%2 0psychiatry/KleinListening%20to%20Meta-Analysis%20But%20Hearing%20Bias.ht m Abstract Kirsch and Sapirstein (1998) present a meta-analysis of 19 studies, attempting to define the relationship of placebo to antidepressant drug effect. They conclude that the substantial majority of drug effect is due to placebo effect and the rest is either measurement error or active placebo effect. The article is criticized because it derives from a miniscule group of unrepresentative, inconsistently and erroneously selected articles arbitrarily analyzed by an obscure, misleading effect size. Further, numerous problems with the meta-analytic approach, in general, and Kirsch and Sapirstein's use of it, in particular, go undiscussed. The attempt to further segment the placebo response, by reference to psychotherapy trials incorporating waiting lists, is confounded by disparate samples, despite Kirsch and Sapirstein's claim of similarity. The failure of peer review and the opportunity provided by an electronic journal for rapid discussion is emphasized. […] A major problem with meta-analysis is that the appearance of statistical rigor can lull the usual reader, who cannot be expected to retrieve and analyze the original sources and is not statistically expert, into an uncritical, complacent mode (especially if the conclusions are congenial). This suspension of disbelief is encouraged by the conviction that peer review has carefully vetted both the source and meta-analytic articles for misstatements, distortions, poor inferences, and statistical malfeasances. Kirsch and Sapirstein (1998) provide a trenchant example of a tendentious article whose departures from any critical standard has not precluded publication and has been foisted on an unsuspecting audience as a "peer reviewed" contribution to the literature. For instance, it seems evident that these peer reviewers did not retrieve and critically review these articles. As for some of the source articles, the adequacy of peer review is clearly questionable. N.B. A useful discussion of the issues involved appeared in "Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice" in 2003: http://www.srmhp.org/0201/media-watch.html Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --------------------------------------------------------- Re:[tips] Clinical training: Boulder and Denver Allen Esterson Wed, 14 Sep 2011 01:50:09 -0700 Paul Brandon writes: >I seem to recall a publication about 20 years >ago to this effect; something like 'Listening >to Prozac but hearing placebo'. To which there was a critical response "Listening to Meta-Analysis but Hearing Bias" that is worth a close reading: file:///C:/Users/dell/Documents/C%20Files/MISC%20PSYCHIATRY/Drugs%20and%2 0psychiatry/KleinListening%20to%20Meta-Analysis%20But%20Hearing%20Bias.ht m Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London allenester...@compuserve.com http://www.esterson.org --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: arch...@jab.org. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=12640 or send a blank email to leave-12640-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
