Unpublished rating scales: A major source of bias in randomised controlledtrials of treatments for schizophrenia

Background A recent review suggested an association between using unpublish ed scales in clinical trials and finding significant results. Aims To determine whether such an association existed in schizophrenia tria ls. Method Three hundred trials were randomly selected from the Cochrane Schizo phrenia Group's Register. All comparisons between treatment groups and cont rol groups using rating scales were identified. The publication status of e ach scale was determined and claims of a significant treatment effect were recorded. Results Trials were more likely to report that a treatment was superior to control when an unpublished scale was used to make the comparison (relative risk 1.37 (95% CI 1.12-1.68)). This effect increased when a 'gold-standard ' definition of treatment superiority was applied (RR 1.94 (95% CI 1.35-2.7 9)). In non-pharmacological trials, one-third of 'gold-standard' claims of treatment superiority would not have been made if published scales had been used. Conclusions Unpublished scales area source of bias in schizophrenia trials.