In the last few years, several meta-analyses have reappraised the efficacy and safety of antidepressants and concluded that the therapeutic value of these drugs may have been significantly overestimated (see Ioannidis). In some instances, the authors of these meta-analyses resorted to the United States' Freedom of Information Act to obtain unpublished data that, when included in meta-analyses with previously published data, reduced significantly the purported therapeutic value of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors.In the case of clinical trials, withholding negative results from publication - publication bias -could have major consequences for the health of millions. In preclinical and experimental research, this bias may seriously distort the literature, drain scarce resources by undertaking research in futile quests, and lead to misguided research and teaching practices. Over and above scientific considerations, research participants consent to participate in research on the understanding that they are contributing to advances in treatment and scientific knowledge. Our ethical duty as researchers and editors is to honour this engagement and publish both positive and negative outcomes in an equitable manner. Animals do not give consent, but the research community is ethically bound to make the best use of the results, which is not the case when negative results are not publicized.
展开▼
