If 94% of published studies say a drug works, is the question settled?
Every published result can be real, and the pile of them can still mislead. Studies that find something get printed; studies that find little often don't, or get written up as if they had.
Antidepressant trials submitted to the FDA, 1987–2004
The same 74 trials, two very different pictures
Each square is one trial, in the same spot in both rows
What gets published isn't a fair sample of what was tested. Almost every trial that worked made it into a journal. Most of the ones that didn't either stayed in a drawer or were written up to sound like successes. A doctor reading every published paper would see a drug that almost always works, when the full record was closer to a coin flip.
The same filter works anywhere only the hits get shown: investing newsletters that advertise their winning picks, diets that only share success stories, a highlight reel of a season. Before trusting a stack of positive results, ask what didn't get shown.
Where do you mostly see the successes and almost never the failures?
What happened to each of the 74 trials
| FDA's verdict | Published as positive | Published as negative | Never published | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | 37 | 0 | 1 | 38 |
| Negative or questionable | 11 | 3 | 22 | 36 |
| All trials | 48 | 3 | 23 | 74 |
The drugs still beat placebo overall. But in the published papers their effect looked about a third bigger (32%) than in the FDA's complete data. Today, U.S. law requires most clinical trials to be registered before they start and to report results, which makes missing trials easier to spot.
Related exhibits
Sources: E. H. Turner et al., "Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy," New England Journal of Medicine, January 17, 2008 (74 FDA-registered trials of 12 antidepressants).