You are not logged in.

Bias in emerging biomarkers for bipolar disorder

Carvalho, A.F., Köhler, C.A., Fernandes, B.S., Quevedo, J., Miskowiak, K.W., Brunoni, A.R., Machado-Vieira, R., Maes, M., Vieta, E. and Berk, M. 2016, Bias in emerging biomarkers for bipolar disorder, Psychological medicine, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 2287-2297, doi: 10.1017/S0033291716000957.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Bias in emerging biomarkers for bipolar disorder
Author(s) Carvalho, A.F.
Köhler, C.A.
Fernandes, B.S.ORCID iD for Fernandes, B.S. orcid.org/0000-0002-3797-7582
Quevedo, J.
Miskowiak, K.W.
Brunoni, A.R.
Machado-Vieira, R.
Maes, M.
Vieta, E.
Berk, M.ORCID iD for Berk, M. orcid.org/0000-0002-5554-6946
Journal name Psychological medicine
Volume number 46
Issue number 11
Start page 2287
End page 2297
Total pages 11
Publisher Cambridge University Press
Place of publication Cambridge, England
Publication date 2016-08
ISSN 0033-2917
1469-8978
Keyword(s) bias
biomarkers
bipolar disorder
meta-analysis
psychiatry
review
Social Sciences
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Psychology, Clinical
Psychology
NEUROTROPHIC FACTOR
OXIDATIVE STRESS
METAANALYSIS
HETEROGENEITY
EXCESS
RDOC
PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
SCHIZOPHRENIA
ASSOCIATIONS
Summary 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 2 ⩾ 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.
Language eng
DOI 10.1017/S0033291716000957
Field of Research 110999 Neurosciences not elsewhere classified
1701 Psychology
1117 Public Health And Health Services
1109 Neurosciences
Socio Economic Objective 920410 Mental Health
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, Cambridge University Press
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30084706

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Medicine
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 7 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 7 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 101 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Tue, 05 Jul 2016, 15:36:24 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.