Bias in emerging biomarkers for bipolar disorder

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bias in emerging biomarkers for bipolar disorder

AU - Carvalho, A F

AU - Köhler, C A

AU - Fernandes, B S

AU - Quevedo, J

AU - Miskowiak, K W

AU - Brunoni, A R

AU - Machado-Vieira, R

AU - Maes, M

AU - Vieta, E

AU - Berk, M

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Background To date no comprehensive evaluation has appraised the likelihood of bias or the strength of the evidence of peripheral biomarkers for bipolar disorder (BD). Here we performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses of peripheral non-genetic biomarkers for BD. Method The Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo electronic databases were searched up to May 2015. Two independent authors conducted searches, examined references for eligibility, and extracted data. Meta-analyses in any language examining peripheral non-genetic biomarkers in participants with BD (across different mood states) compared to unaffected controls were included. Results Six references, which examined 13 biomarkers across 20 meta-analyses (5474 BD cases and 4823 healthy controls) met inclusion criteria. Evidence for excess of significance bias (i.e. bias favoring publication of 'positive' nominally significant results) was observed in 11 meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was high for (I 50%) 16 meta-analyses. Only two biomarkers met criteria for suggestive evidence namely the soluble IL-2 receptor and morning cortisol. The median power of included studies, using the effect size of the largest dataset as the plausible true effect size of each meta-analysis, was 15.3%. Conclusions Our findings suggest that there is an excess of statistically significant results in the literature of peripheral biomarkers for BD. Selective publication of 'positive' results and selective reporting of outcomes are possible mechanisms.

AB - Background To date no comprehensive evaluation has appraised the likelihood of bias or the strength of the evidence of peripheral biomarkers for bipolar disorder (BD). Here we performed an umbrella review of meta-analyses of peripheral non-genetic biomarkers for BD. Method The Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE and PsycInfo electronic databases were searched up to May 2015. Two independent authors conducted searches, examined references for eligibility, and extracted data. Meta-analyses in any language examining peripheral non-genetic biomarkers in participants with BD (across different mood states) compared to unaffected controls were included. Results Six references, which examined 13 biomarkers across 20 meta-analyses (5474 BD cases and 4823 healthy controls) met inclusion criteria. Evidence for excess of significance bias (i.e. bias favoring publication of 'positive' nominally significant results) was observed in 11 meta-analyses. Heterogeneity was high for (I 50%) 16 meta-analyses. Only two biomarkers met criteria for suggestive evidence namely the soluble IL-2 receptor and morning cortisol. The median power of included studies, using the effect size of the largest dataset as the plausible true effect size of each meta-analysis, was 15.3%. Conclusions Our findings suggest that there is an excess of statistically significant results in the literature of peripheral biomarkers for BD. Selective publication of 'positive' results and selective reporting of outcomes are possible mechanisms.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1017/s0033291716000957

DO - 10.1017/s0033291716000957

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 27193198

SN - 0033-2917

VL - 46

SP - 2287

EP - 2297

JO - Psychological Medicine

JF - Psychological Medicine

IS - 11

ER -