This paper discusses several philosophical problems with the use of randomized clinical trials in psychotherapy outcome research. The problems include: the impermanence problem, the identification problem, and idiographic problems. The paper concludes with an assessment of the overall case for and against the use of RCTs in psychotherapy outcome research.

In this article, the authors present an ethnography of biomedical knowledge production and science collaboration when they take place in developing country contexts. The authors focus on the arrival of international clinical trials to Sri Lanka and provide analysis of what was described as one of the first multisited trials in the country, a pharmaceutical company sponsored, phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial carried out between 2009 and 2010. Using interviews with those who conducted the (...) trial and six months of participant observation at the trial hospital, the authors describe the work that goes on to perform trials according to international standards. The article describes what happens when a randomized controlled trial encounters existing epistemic virtues and documents the impacts on ideas of authority, expertise and doctor–patient relationships found in Sri Lankan medicine. (shrink)

The central dilemma concerning randomized clinical trials (RCTs) arises out of some simple facts about causal methodology (RCTs are the best way to generate the reliable causal knowledge necessary for optimally-informed action) and a prima facie plausible principle concerning how physicians should treat their patients (always do what it is most reasonable to believe will be best for the patient). A number of arguments related to this in the literature are considered. Attempts to avoid the dilemma fail. (...) Appeals to informed consent and mechanisms for minimizing the resulting harm are important for policy, but informed consent is problematic and mechanisms for minimization of harm do not address the dilemma. Appeals to some sort of contract model of justification are promising and illuminating. Keywords: randomized clinical trials, ethics CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

Little is known about the views of mothers when their children are invited to participate in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating medicines and/or invasive procedures. Our goal was to understand mothers’ perceptions of the processes of informed consent and randomization in a RCT that divided uncooperative children into three intervention groups (physical restraint, sedation, and general anesthesia) for dental rehabilitation.

The achievement of optimal therapeutic results presupposes the use of appropriate treatment combined with maximal utilization of placebo effects. These aims may sometimes be difficult to satisfy in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The question thus arises whether there is a conflict between the goals of therapy and those of experimental research; and if so, to what extent, and how is it handled in practice by clinicians and researchers. Various ethical problems have been discussed in several reports connected (...) with RCTs. But we have found no discussion concerning the conflict between obtaining informed consent and promoting optimal placebo effects. Information about RCTs can be given in various ways. Sometimes appropriate information about RCTs to patients involves non-optimal utilization of placebo effects. This gives rise to ethical and methodological problems, which are discussed in this article. (shrink)

Today scientists are expected to be more accountable and transparent than at any time in history. Globally the pursuit of knowledge creation enjoys a place of distinction, and the public expects to reap considerable benefit from the innovative contributions made by researchers. It is therefore more important than ever that ethics, transparency and professionalism explicitly guide research integrity. Despite the clear importance of acquiring a fundamental understanding of clinical trials in the context of health research and innovation, medical (...) training generally fails to cover clinical trial integrity in its curriculum, including it neither at undergraduate nor at postgraduate levels. This new book provides a curriculum to address this gap, offering best practice guidelines to improve the quality, openness and trustworthiness of clinical trials and filling a current void in the market. Key Features: The first book on clinical trial integrity. Provides clear guidance on how to ensure probity in peer review, appraisal of trials and investigation of complaints concerning misconduct in clinical trials. Trains and supports researchers globally in how to undertake trials with integrity. Ensures the increasing demand for public documentation of all aspects throughout the lifecycle of a clinical trial can be met. The book is essential reading for master and doctoral students undertaking courses in clinical trials, epidemiology and medical statistics and an invaluable reference for medical journal editors and peer reviewers, clinicians who recruit patients into trials, pharmaceutical industry professionals, patient and public representatives who engage in clinical trials, systematic reviewers, guideline writers, funders and regulators of clinical trials. (shrink)

In recent years, there has been a surge of high-profile publications on applications of artificial intelligence (AI) systems for medical diagnosis and prognosis. While AI provides various opportunities for medical practice, there is an emerging consensus that the existing studies show considerable deficits and are unable to establish the clinical benefit of AI systems. Hence, the view that the clinical benefit of AI systems needs to be studied in clinical trials—particularly randomised controlled trials (RCTs)—is gaining (...) ground. However, an issue that has been overlooked so far in the debate is that, compared with drug RCTs, AI RCTs require methodological adjustments, which entail ethical challenges. This paper sets out to develop a systematic account of the ethics of AI RCTs by focusing on the moral principles of clinical equipoise, informed consent and fairness. This way, the objective is to animate further debate on the (research) ethics of medical AI. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether randomized clinical trial (RCT) methods are necessarily morally problematic. If they are intrinsically problematic, then there may be a dilemma such that tragic choices might have to be made between this socially very useful method for making medical progress on the one hand, and patients' rights and welfare, or physicans' duties on the other. It is argued that the dilemma may be avoided if RCTs can sometimes be viewed as (...) an honorable and cooperative venture between investigators and subjects. Another dilemma may take shape, however, if too few people are willing to cooperate to maintain the structural integrity of many important RCTs. Given their importance, does this method justify easing some of the consent requirements? It is argued that RCT methods are not so ideal that special consideration should be given to them regarding consent requirements. To examine the compatibility of current consent requirements and frequently used RCT schemas, seven RCT designs are discussed. It is found that some, but not all, RCTs, are intrinsically problematic but that sufficient reason has not been found to hold all RCT schemas as intrinsically morally troubling. Keywords: randomized clinical trials, informed consent, randomization CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us What's this? (shrink)

A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of (...) modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use. (shrink)

A background assumption of this paper is that the repertoire of inference schemes available to humanity is not fixed, but subject to change as new schemes are invented or refined and as old ones are obsolesced or abandoned. This is particularly visible in areas like health and environmental sciences, where enormous societal investment has been made in finding ways to reach more dependable conclusions. Computational modeling of argumentation, at least for the discourse in expert fields, will require the possibility of (...) modeling change in a stock of schemes that may be applied to generate conclusions from data. We examine Randomized Clinical Trial, an inference scheme established within medical science in the mid-20th Century, and show that its successful defense by means of practical reasoning allowed for its black-boxing as an inference scheme that generates (and warrants belief in) conclusions about the effects of medical treatments. Modeling the use of a scheme is well-understood; here we focus on modeling how the scheme comes to be established so that it is available for use. (shrink)

If definitive evidence concerning treatment effectiveness becomes available from an ongoing randomized clinical trial, then the trial could be stopped early, with the public release of results benefiting current and future patients. However, stopping an ongoing trial based on accruing outcome data requires methodological rigor to preserve validity of the trial conclusions. This has led to the use of formal interim monitoring procedures, which include inefficacy monitoring that will stop a trial early when the experimental treatment appears not (...) to be working. For participants, inefficacy monitoring is especially important as it ensures that they are not being treated worse than if they had not enrolled on the trial. We discuss the importance of reporting with trial results the formal interim inefficacy monitoring guidelines that were utilized, and, if none were used, the reasons for their absence. A survey of two leading medical journals suggests that this is not current practice. (shrink)

Objectives. To document the prevalence of ethical requirements in the instructions for authors of journals that published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in 2005. Design. Using a validated computerized search strategy for retrieving abstracts of RCTs, we retrieved 13 184 references from 2056 journals. These journals were divided into journals that had published > 30 RCTs in 2005, and those that had published fewer. We included all the former and a random sample of the latter journals in the (...) analysis. Measurements. Coders retrieved the instructions for authors for each journal. The coders identified whether 15 ethical requirements were present in each of the instructions, calculated the age of the journal, and determined where it was published. Results. Only 51% of journals required that authors document review by an ethics committee, only 55% required declaration of conflicts of interest, and only 33% required documentation of informed consent. Overall, 48% of instructions required three or fewer of 15 ethics items. Journals publishing many RCTs each year had more ethical requirements (P <0.001), older journals had more requirements (P <0.012), as did journals published in the US (P <0.001). Journals published in Europe had fewer (P <0.001). However, in multiple regression analyses involving the journal's age, location of publication, and number of RCTs published, only publishing many RCTs was associated with having more ethical requirements (P <0.001). Conclusions. Many journals do not require important elements of research ethics in their instructions for authors. Ethical requirements are less common in the many journals that publish few clinical trials each year, journals that have often been overlooked in prior studies of journal ethics. Keywords: Randomized clinical trials, ethical instructions, publication ethics, journal requirements. (shrink)

This paper critically examines a particular strategy for resolving the central ethical dilemma associated with randomized clinical trials — the “community equipoise” strategy . The dilemma is that RCTs appear to violate a physician's duty to choose that therapy which there is most reason to believe is in the patient's best interest, randomizing patients even once evidence begins to favor one treatment. The community equipoise strategy involves the suggestion that our judgment that neither treatment is to be (...) preferred is to be assessed according to a community rather than an individual standard. Thus, though a physician may personally believe that there is some reason to prefer one treatment, patients can legitimately be randomized if there remains disagreement in the community of medical professionals. Rationales in favor of this conception include the following: medical knowledge is best understood as residing in the community, the judgments of others count as evidence, and so should change one's own opinion, subjects would not be better off outside the trial, and the point of any trial is the resolution of dispute in the medical community. I critically examine these rationales and argue that they are insufficient. Amongst the problems are tensions between various of these underlying rationales, and important ambiguities in just what the CE criterion is to amount to. Finally, I argue that even if use of CE was justified, it would not justify carrying out RCTs anywhere near long enough to discharge our duty to gain reliable knowledge on which to base safe and effective medical practice. Hence, we need some different justification for carrying out RCTs. (shrink)

The physician who upholds the Hippocratic oath is supposed to be loyal to his or her patients. This requires choosing only the therapy that the physician believes is best for the patient. However, knowing what is best requires randomized clinical trials. Thus, clinicians must be willing to recruit their patients to be assigned at random to one of two therapies in order to determine which is best based on the highest standards of pharmacological science.

Clinical research employing the randomized clinical trial has, traditionally, been understood to pose an ethical dilemma. On the one hand, each patient ought to get the treatment that best meets her needs, as judged by the patient in consultation with her doctor. On the other hand, the method most helpful to advancing our understanding about what treatments are indeed best able to meet patient needs is the randomized trial, which necessitates that each patient's care is decided (...) not by physician judgment or patient choice but instead by random assignment. The tension can be described as a conflict between the interests of individual patients who are sick today, and the interests of the group of people who will become sick in the future and would benefit from advances in medical understanding. How one ought to balance these important and often competing interests is an important ethical question that resists easy resolution. (shrink)

Randomized controlled clinical trials play an important role in the development of new medical therapies. There is, however, an ethical issue surrounding the use of randomized treatment allocation when the patient is suffering from a life threatening condition and requires immediate treatment. Such patients can only benefit from the treatment they actually receive and not from the alternative therapy, even if it ultimately proves to be superior. We discuss a novel new way to analyse data from (...) such clinical trials based on the use of the recently developed theory of imprecise probabilities. This work draws an explicit distinction between the related but nevertheless distinct questions of inference and decision in clinical trials. The traditional question of scientific interest asks 'Which treatment offers the greater chance of success?' and is the primary reason for conducting the clinical trial. The question of decision concerns the welfare of the patients in the clinical trial, asking whether the accumulated evidence favours one treatment over the other to such an extent that the next patient should decline randomization and instead express a preference for one treatment. Consideration of the decision question within the framework of imprecise probabilities leads to a mathematical definition of equipoise and a method for governing the randomization protocol of a clinical trial. This paper describes in detail the protocol for the conduct of clinical trials based on this new method of analysis, which is illustrated in a retrospective analysis of data from a clinical trial comparing the anti-emetic drugs ondansetron and droperidol in the treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting. The proposed methodology is compared quantitatively using computer simulation studies with conventional clinical trial designs and is shown to maintain high statistical power with reduced sample sizes, at the expense of a high type I error rate that we argue is irrelevant in some specific circumstances. Particular emphasis is placed on describing the type of medical conditions and treatment comparisons where the new methodology is expected to provide the greatest benefit. (shrink)

The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the (...) most prominent proposed alternatives are. In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials. (shrink)

This article focuses on maternal-fetal surgery (MFS) and on the concept of clinical equipoise that is a widely accepted requirement for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCT). There are at least three reasons why equipoise is unsuitable for MFS. First, the concept is based on a misconception about the nature of clinical research and the status of research subjects. Second, given that it is not clear who the research subject/s in MFS is/are, if clinical equipoise is (...) to be used as a criterion to test the ethical appropriateness of RCT, its meaning should be unambiguous. Third, because of the multidisciplinary character of MFS, it is not clear who should be in equipoise. As a result, we lack an adequate criterion for the ethical review of MFS protocols. In our account, which is based on Chervenak and McCullough's seminal work in the field of obstetric ethics, equipoise is abandoned. and RCT involving MFS can be ethically initiated when a multidisciplinary ethics review board (ERB), having an evidence-based assessment of the risks involved, is convinced that the value of answering the research hypothesis, for the sake of the health interests of future pregnant women carrying fetuses with certain congenital birth defects, justifies the actual risks research participants might suffer within a set limit of low/manageable. (shrink)

Background: COVID-19 has taken many lives worldwide and due to this, millions of persons are in grief. When the grief process lasts longer than 6 months, the person is in risk of developing Complicated Grief Disorder. The CGD is related to serious health consequences. To reduce the probability of developing CGD a preventive intervention could be applied. In developing countries like Mexico, the psychological services are scarce, self-applied interventions could provide support to solve this problem and reduce the health impact (...) even after the pandemic has already finished.Aims: To design and implement a self-applied intervention composed of 12 modules focused on the decrease of the risk of developing CGD, and increasing the life quality, and as a secondary objective to reduce the symptomatology of anxiety, depression, and increase of sleep quality. The Intervention Duelo COVID follows the principles of User Experience and is designed according to the needs and desires of a sample of the objective participants, to increase the adherence to the self-applied intervention, considered one of the main weaknesses of online interventions.Methods: A Randomized Controlled Trial will be conducted from the 22nd of December of 2020 to the first of June 2021. The participants will be assigned to an intervention with elements of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy, Mindfulness and Positive Psychology. The control group will be a wait-list condition, that will receive the intervention 1.5–2 months after the pre-measurement were taken. The Power Size Calculation conducted through G*Power indicated the need for a total of 42 participants, which will be divided by 21 participants in each group. The platform will be delivered through responsive design assuring with this that the intervention will adapt to the screen size of cellphones, tablets, and computers.Ethics and Dissemination: The study counts with the approval of the Research Ethics Committee of the Autonomous University of Ciudad Juárez, México, and it is registered in Clinical Trials. The article is sent and registered in clinical trials before the recruitment started. The results will be reported in future conferences, scientific publications, and media. (shrink)

An apparent ethical dilemma arises when physicians consider enrolling their patients in randomized clinical trials. Suppose that a randomized clinical trial comparing two treatments is in progress, and a physician has an opinion about which treatment is better. The physician has a duty to promote the patient's best medical interests and therefore seems to be obliged to advise the patient to receive the treatment that the physician prefers. This duty creates a barrier to the enrollment (...) of patients in randomized clinical trials.1-10 Two strategies are often used to resolve the dilemma in favor of enrolling patients in clinical trials. (shrink)

The present paper deals with the problem of evaluating empirical evidence for therapeutic decisions in medicine. The article discusses the views of Nancy Cartwright and John Worrall on the function that randomization plays in ascertaining causal relations with reference to the therapies applied. The main purpose of the paper is to present a general idea of alternative method of evaluating empirical evidence. The method builds on data analysis that makes use of rough set theory. The first attempts to apply the (...) method show that it is an interesting alternative to randomized controlled trials. (shrink)

Sociologists of science have argued that due to the institutional reward system negative research results, such as failed experiments, may harm scientific careers. We know little, however, of how scientists themselves make sense of negative research findings. Drawing from the sociology of work, the author discusses how researchers involved in a double-blind, placebo, controlled randomized clinical trial for methamphetamine dependency informally and formally interpret the emerging research results. Because the drug tested in the trial was not an effective (...) treatment, the staff considered the trial a failure. In spite of the disappointing results, the staff involved in the daily work with research subjects still reframed the trial as meaningful because they were able to treat people for their drug dependency. The authors of the major publication also framed the results as worthwhile by linking their study to a previously published study in a post hoc analysis. The author concludes that negative research findings offer a collective opportunity to define what scientific work is about and that the effects of failed experiments depend on individual biography and institutional context. (shrink)

There is unanimous agreement regarding the need to ethically conduct research for improving therapy for patients admitted to hospital with acute conditions, including in emergency obstetric care. We present a conceptual analysis of ethical tensions inherent in the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials for emergency obstetric care and suggest ways in which these could be mitigated. A valid consenting process, leading to an informed consent, is a cornerstone of this aspect necessary for preservation and maintenance (...) of respect for autonomy and dignity. In emergency obstetric care research, obtaining informed consent can be problematic, leading to ethical tension between different moral considerations. Potential participants may be vulnerable due to severity of disease, powerlessness or impaired decisional capacity. Time for the consent process is limited, and some interventions have a narrow therapeutic window. These factors create ethical tension in allowing potentially beneficial research while avoiding potential harms and maintaining respect for dignity, human rights, justice and autonomy of the participants. Informed consent in emergency obstetric care in low- and middle-income countries poses numerous ethical challenges. Allowing research on vulnerable populations while maintaining respect for participant dignity and autonomy, protecting participants from potential harms and promoting justice underlie the ethical tensions in the research in emergency obstetric and newborn care. Those involved in research conduct or oversight have a duty of fair inclusion, to avoid denying participants the right to participate and to any potential research benefits. (shrink)

(2011). The Children's Oncology Group Routinely Applies “Lack of Efficacy” Interim Monitoring to Its Randomized Clinical Trials. The American Journal of Bioethics: Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 18-19.

This study described parent participation in the informed consent conference for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in childhood leukemia and documented the relationship of physician communication to parent participation. Parents of 140 children with newly diagnosed leukemia who were eligible for RCTs were studied at six sites using comprehensive methods involving direct observation and transcripts of parent-physician communication based on audiotapes. Parent participation during the informed consent conference reflected a wide range of content categories. Consistent with hypotheses, Physician (...) Rapport and Partnership Building related to parent participation in the informed consent conference but Information Giving did not. Higher parent socioeconomic status also was related to greater parent participation for two of three measures of parent participation. Findings suggest that physician behaviors that provide support and facilitate communication may enhance parental participation in the informed consent conference for RCTs in childhood leukemia. (shrink)

The random]ized clinical trial is widely accepted as the optimal approach to evaluating the safety and efficacy of medical treatments. Resistance to randomized treatment assignment arises regularly, most commonly in situations where the disease is life-threatening and treatments are either unavailable or unsatisfactory. Historical control designs, in which all participants receive the experimental treatment with results compared to a prior cohort, are advocated by some as more ethical in such circumstances; however, such studies are often highly biased in (...) favor of the new treatment and frequently yield misleading results. Alternative controlled designs motivated by the desire to maximize the number of patients with the treatment ultimately determined to be superior have been proposed, but have been challenged on both methodological and ethical grounds. Debates about appropriate and ethical study designs recurred during the recent Ebola Virus Disease epidemic in West Africa. Despite its devastating nature, the EVD epidemic showed the ongoing necessity of conducting randomized trials to obtain convincing evidence of the safety and efficacy of therapeutic interventions. (shrink)

There is longstanding consensus on the need to include pregnant women in research. The goal of clinical research is to find highly regulated, carefully controlled, morally responsible ways to generate evidence...

This paper outlines the approaches of two apparently competing schools of statistics. The criticisms made by supporters of Bayesian statistics about conventional Frequentist statistics are explained, and the Bayesian claim that their method enables research into new treatments without the need for clinical trials is examined in detail. Several further important issues are considered, including: the use of historical controls and data routinely collected on patients; balance in randomised trials; the possibility of giving information to patients; patient (...) choice and patient autonomy; and how widely the results of clinical trials can be used. It is concluded that good statistical techniques in the design and analysis of medical studies are essential, but the statistical school used in developing such techniques is relatively unimportant. (shrink)

BackgroundThe contemporary frameworks for clinical research require informed consent for research participation that includes disclosure of material information, comprehension of disclosed information and voluntary consent to research participation. There is thus an urgent need to test, and an ethical imperative, to test, modify or refine medications or healthcare plans that could reduce patient morbidity, lower healthcare costs or strengthen healthcare systems.MethodsConceptual review.DiscussionAlthough some allocation principles seem better than others, no single moral principle allocates interventions justly, necessitating combining the moral (...) principles into multiprinciple allocation systems. The urgency notwithstanding, navigating ethical challenges related to conducting corona virus disease (COVID-19) clinical trials is mandatory, in order to safeguard the safety and welfare of research participants, ensure autonomy of participants, reduce possibilities for exploitation and ensure opportunities for research participation. The ethical challenges to can be categorized as challenges in allocation of resources for research; challenges of clinical equipoise in relation to the research questions; challenges of understanding disclosed information in potential participants; and challenges in obtaining informed consent.ConclusionTo navigate these challenges, stakeholders need a delicate balance of moral principles during allocation of resources for research. Investigators need to apply information processing theories to aid decision-making about research participation or employ acceptable modifications to improve the informed consent process. Research and ethics committees should strengthen research review and oversight to ensure rigor, responsiveness and transparency. (shrink)

This study aims to evaluate the effects of an innovative mind-body practice named the brain wave modulation technique on stress, anxiety, global distress, and affect. The technique was administered online through a web-based video conferencing platform. The intervention started on week four of the first quarantine in Italy, for a duration of 4 weeks and ended before lockdown measures were loosened. 310 people participated in the study, mean age 28.73 years old, 77.8% women. Of these, about half were randomly assigned (...) to the experimental group and the other half served as controls. Participants completed online psychological tests before and after the intervention. 266 people completed the post-intervention tests. Consistent with our hypothesis, the study’s findings indicate a reduction in the levels of stress, anxiety, global distress, and negative affect in the experimental group, compared to the control group. Moreover, the experimental group also showed higher levels of positive affect, compared to controls after the intervention. The present findings add to the current literature in suggesting that the BWM-T reduced stress not only when administered face-to face but also when administered online during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, we also noted that the BWM-T has an effect on anxiety, global distress, and affect, which we had not investigated in previous studies. (shrink)

Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists’ appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome. Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate (...) a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results. Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article. Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey. Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility nor interpretation of its clinical relevance. A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores. In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature. (shrink)