Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 15, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
DEPERROR: Risks of systematic errors in drug and non-drug randomized clinical trials assessing intervention effects
Jesper Krogh1, Carsten Rygaard Hjorthøj1, Janus Christian Jakobsen2
1Mental Health Centre Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Background:
Systematic errors in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) overestimate treatment effects. We systematically assessed the risks of bias in RCTs assessing the effects of drug and non-drug interventions for patients with unipolar depression.
Methods:
We searched bibliographic databases for drug and non-drug RCTs including patients with depression. We assessed the following risk of bias domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, baseline imbalance, blinding, intention-to-treat analysis, selective outcome reporting, and funding. Risks of bias were compared for drug and non-drug trials and according to year of publication (before 1990; from 1990 to 1999; and 2000 to 2010).
Results:
Comparing drug trials (N=775) to non-drug trials (N=73), the proportion of drug trials with low risk of bias seemed superior regarding blinding of participants (p<0.001), blinding of health-care providers (p<0.001), and blinded outcome assessment (p<0.001). Non-drug trials were superior regarding sequence generation (p<0.001), allocation concealment (p=0.002), intention-to-treat analysis (p<0.001), and baseline imbalance (p=0.006). Adequate blinding of data managers (p=0.45), blinding of statisticians (p=0.69), and selective outcome reporting (p=0.55) did not differ. 41.5% of drug trials were funded by for-profit organizations compared to 12.3% of non-drug trials (p<0.001). In drug trials, the risk of bias decreased significantly over time. This did not reach statistical significance in non-drug trials.
Limitations:
This study only included trials published before 2010.
Conclusions:
Included trials were associated with high risks of bias which may distort effect estimates. The risks of bias decreased with time for drug trials.
Insights
Randomized clinical trials for depression often have systematic errors. Drug trials showed better blinding, while non-drug trials had superior methodology, though both had high risks of bias.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Trials Methodology
- Psychiatry Research
- Evidence-Based Medicine
Background:
- Systematic errors in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) can overestimate treatment effects.
- Assessing risks of bias is crucial for evaluating interventions for unipolar depression.
Purpose of the Study:
- To systematically assess the risks of bias in RCTs for unipolar depression interventions.
- To compare bias risks between drug and non-drug trials.
- To examine trends in bias over time.
Main Methods:
- Searched bibliographic databases for drug and non-drug RCTs in depression.
- Assessed bias across domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, intention-to-treat, selective reporting, funding.
- Compared bias risks by intervention type and publication year (pre-1990, 1990-1999, 2000-2010).
Main Results:
- Drug trials (N=775) showed better blinding (participants, providers, assessors) than non-drug trials (N=73).
- Non-drug trials demonstrated superiority in sequence generation, allocation concealment, intention-to-treat, and baseline balance.
- For-profit funding was higher in drug trials (41.5%) vs. non-drug trials (12.3%).
- Risk of bias decreased over time in drug trials, but not significantly in non-drug trials.
Conclusions:
- RCTs for depression included in this study (published before 2010) had high risks of bias.
- These biases may distort treatment effect estimates.
- Bias risks have decreased over time for drug trials, indicating methodological improvements.
Related Concept Videos
Blind Procedures
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Drug Toxicity: Risk factors
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Nonlinear Pharmacokinetics: Dependence of Elimination Half-Life and Dose Clearance
A study on guinea pigs examined the...
Regression Toward the Mean