Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
medicine
Bias in emerging biomarkers for bipolar disorder
Psychological Medicine, Volume 46, No. 11, Year 2016
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
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. Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016.
Authors & Co-Authors
Carvalho, André F.
Brazil, Fortaleza
Universidade Federal do Ceará
Köhler, Cristiano A.
Brazil, Fortaleza
Universidade Federal do Ceará
Quevedo, João L.
United States, Houston
University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Brazil, Tubarao
Universidade do Sul de Santa Catarina
Miskowiak, Kamilla Woznica
Denmark, Copenhagen
Copenhagen University Hospital
Brunoni, André Russowski
Brazil, Sao Paulo
Universidade de São Paulo
Machado-Vieira, Rodrigo
Brazil, Sao Paulo
Universidade de São Paulo
United States, Bethesda
National Institutes of Health Nih
Maes, Michael H.J.
Australia, Geelong
Barwon Health
Vieta, Eduard
Spain, Barcelona
Institut D'investigacions Biomèdiques August pi I Sunyer - Idibaps
Berk, Michael
Australia, Geelong
Barwon Health
Australia, Melbourne
Orygen Youth Health
Statistics
Citations: 59
Authors: 9
Affiliations: 10
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1017/S0033291716000957
ISSN:
00332917
Research Areas
Genetics And Genomics
Mental Health
Study Approach
Systematic review