Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 17, 2026

How to Study Placebo Responses in Motion Sickness with a Rotation Chair Paradigm in Healthy Participants
Published on: December 14, 2014
The paroxetine 352 bipolar trial: A study in medical ghostwriting
Jay D Amsterdam1, Leemon B McHenry
1Depression Research Unit, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA. enopath@aol.com
Background:
The problem of ghostwriting in corporate-sponsored clinical trials is of concern to medicine, bioethics, and government agencies. We present a study of the ghostwritten archival report of an industry-sponsored trial comparing antidepressant treatments for bipolar depression: GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paroxetine study 352. This analysis is based upon publicly available evidence presented in a complaint of research misconduct filed with the Office of Research Integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Objectives:
We performed a deconstruction of the published study to show how primary and secondary outcome analyses were conflated, turning a 'negative' clinical trial into a 'positive' study - with conclusions and recommendations that could adversely affect patient health.
Methods:
The paroxetine 352 study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 19-site trial comparing paroxetine and imipramine in 117 patients with bipolar type I major depressive episode which was unresponsive to prior lithium carbonate therapy.
Results:
Analysis of the primary outcome measures found no statistically significant difference between paroxetine or imipramine versus placebo. However, the published article concluded that both drugs were efficacious versus placebo for a post hoc subgroup of patients.
Conclusions:
Few industry-sponsored studies gain public scrutiny. It is important to make these articles transparent to the scientific and medical community.
Insights
Ghostwriting in corporate clinical trials is a concern. Analysis of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paroxetine study 352 revealed a negative trial was presented as positive, potentially impacting patient health.
Area of Science:
- Clinical trial analysis
- Bioethics
- Pharmaceutical industry research
Background:
- Ghostwriting in corporate-sponsored clinical trials raises ethical and regulatory concerns.
- This study examines GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paroxetine study 352, focusing on allegations of ghostwriting and research misconduct.
- The analysis utilizes publicly available evidence from a research misconduct complaint.
Purpose of the Study:
- To deconstruct the published report of GSK paroxetine study 352.
- To demonstrate how outcome analyses were manipulated, transforming a negative trial into a positive one.
- To highlight potential adverse effects on patient health due to misleading conclusions.
Main Methods:
- The study involved a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial at 19 sites.
- It compared paroxetine and imipramine in 117 patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression.
- Analysis focused on primary and secondary outcome measures as presented in the archival report.
Main Results:
- Primary outcome analyses showed no statistically significant difference between paroxetine or imipramine and placebo.
- The published article incorrectly concluded efficacy for a post hoc subgroup of patients.
- This misrepresentation turned a negative trial into a positive study in its conclusions.
Conclusions:
- Industry-sponsored studies often lack public scrutiny.
- Transparency in reporting industry-sponsored research is crucial for the scientific and medical communities.
- Ensuring accurate reporting protects patient health and maintains research integrity.
Related Concept Videos
The Placebo Effect
Blind Procedures
Nonlinear Pharmacokinetics: Dependence of Elimination Half-Life and Dose Clearance
A study on guinea pigs examined the...
Blinding
Antidepressant Drugs: MAOIs and Other Agents
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients