RESUMO
Spin, defined as the misrepresentation of the results of a study, could negate the validity of scientific findings. To explore the manifestation of spin, and identify the factors affecting spin in COVID-19 RCTs, a systematic review was performed from PubMed/Medline, National Institutes of Health, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. RCTs on pharmacotherapy for COVID-19 with nonsignificant primary outcomes published in 2020 were included. 21 abstracts (33.9%) and 28 main texts (45.2%) were found to contain spin in at least one section. In the conclusion section, other spin strategies beautifying their findings that were not included in the abstract were found in the main texts. More factors influencing the level of spin were found in abstracts than in the main texts, but most of the levels of spin in abstracts were comparable to those in the main texts. Although common factors that affected the manifestation of spin in the main texts and abstracts were the sample size and type of journal, further research to determine multicollinearity between significant factors and the manifestation of spin is required.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of gender as a risk factor for developing contrast media-associated adverse drug reactions (CM-ADRs) by comparing the incidence of CM-ADR between male and female patients according to study design, ADR type, and computed tomography (CT) examination. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We systematically searched three electronic databases for eligible studies. In the studies included (n=18), we assessed effect estimates of the relative incidence of CM-ADR, analysed by experimental design, ADR type and CT examination. This was calculated by using a random effects model if clinical conditions showed heterogeneity; otherwise, a fixed effects model was used. RESULTS: We identified 10,776 patients administered CM. According to the designs, studies were classified into randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Results were as follows: risk ratio (RR)=1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.46, P=0.66) for RCTs, and RR=0.77 (95% CI: 0.58-1.04, P=0.09) for observational studies. The results of analysis according to ADR type and for undergoing CT demonstrated that the incidence of CM-ADR did not differ between males and females. CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant difference in the incidence of CM-ADRs between male and female patients according to study design, ADR type, or CT examination. Future studies to determine why gender has shown different roles as a risk factor between CM-ADRs and non-CM ADRs are needed.
