RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study's results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic. RESULTS: A total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified. CONCLUSIONS: We have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to assess for spin - a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms - within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM). METHODS: PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The included full-text studies were read and evaluated for spin using a previously determined search strategy. Two authors further evaluated study quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. RESULTS: Our PubMed search identified 478 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of which a random sample of 200 was selected for data extraction. Spin within the abstract of the manuscript was identified in 34.5% (69/200) of the included reviews. We identified seven of the nine spin types, with two types being most common: (1) conclusion claiming a benefit despite high risk of bias among studies reviewed (19.5% of abstracts), and (2) conclusion claiming a benefit despite reporting bias (14.5%). No significant associations were found between the presence of spin and any of the evaluated study characteristics, the AMSTAR-2 appraisal, or the journal of publication. CONCLUSION: Spin is commonly present in abstracts of EM systematic reviews. The reporting quality for EM systematic reviews requires improvement. Measures should be taken to improve the overall review process and way information is conveyed through abstracts.
RESUMO
CONTEXT: "Spin" is a form of bias that involves highlighting study results in a way that presents the conclusions about benefit or efficacy beyond the scope of the data. Spin in the abstract of published studies has the potential to affect patient care, making investigations about its presence and prevalence important for readers. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the most severe types of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS: Using a cross sectional study design, the authors searched MEDLINE and Embase with the terms "percutaneous coronary intervention," "percutaneous coronary revascularization," "PCI," "systematic review," "meta analysis," and "meta-analysis." To be considered for this study, the article must have (1) focused on PCI; (2) had either a systematic review or metaanalysis study design; (3) been conducted on human subjects; and (4) been available in English. Reviews were excluded if these criteria were not met. Each included article was assessed for the nine most severe types of spin as defined in a previously published article, as well as other study characteristics (type of intervention being compared, date the review was received, adherence of systematic review and/or meta-analysis to Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews or Metanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines, requirement of PRISMA guidelines by the publishing journal, the publishing journal's five-year impact factor, and sources of funding). RESULTS: Our database search retrieved 7,038 records; 2,190 duplicates were removed. Initial title and abstract screening led to the exclusion of 4,367 records, and an additional 281 records were excluded during full text screening. An arbitrary limit of 200 articles was applied for this analysis; five additional articles were excluded for ineligible study design, so 195 were included in our final analysis. Spin was present in the abstracts of 43 studies from that pool (22.1%). Spin type 3-selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention-occurred most frequently (29; 14.8%). The presence of spin was not associated with any of the extracted study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Our data showed that spin occurred in more than one in every five systematic reviews or metaanalyses of PCI. Spin has the potential to distort a reader's ability to translate the true findings of a study; therefore, efforts are needed to prevent spin from appearing in article summaries.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Smoking cessation treatments and available evidence continue to evolve. To stay current with the latest research, physicians often refer to abstracts of systematic reviews. Because abstracts of systematic reviews may have direct effects on patient care, the information within them should be free of 'spin'. Spin is a specific way of reporting, intentional or not, to highlight that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment in terms of efficacy or safety is greater than that shown by the results (i.e. overstate efficacy and/or understate harm). METHODS: We searched systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on interventions and treatments for smoking cessation. Full-text screening, data extraction, evaluation of spin, and quality assessment were conducted in masked, duplicate fashion. Study and journal characteristics were also recorded to determine whether they were associated with the presence of spin. RESULTS: A total of 200 systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria were included in the final analyses. Spin occurred in 3.5% (7/200) of the systematic review abstracts included in our sample. No study characteristics were significantly associated with spin. CONCLUSIONS: Of the reviewed abstracts in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 96.5% of those that focused on smoking cessation were free of spin. However, the existence of spin warrants further steps to improve the scientific accuracy of abstracts on smoking cessation treatments. By identifying and acknowledging the presence of spin in systematic reviews, we hope to increase awareness about reporting practices in an ultimate effort to improve the integrity of scientific research as a whole.
RESUMO
Background: With 14.4 million U.S. adults diagnosed with alcohol use disorder (AUD) annually, effective treatments for combatting this condition are essential. Clinicians are often guided by systematic reviews and meta-analyses - considered the gold standard of research. Spin, a biased way of reporting results, may lead to misinterpretation of research findings, resulting in suboptimal patient care.Objective: Our primary objective was to investigate the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of AUD treatments.Methods: After systematically searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews of AUD treatments, abstracts were evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin. Additional article characteristics were concurrently extracted and study quality was evaluated. Descriptive statistics of spin were calculated and associations between spin and study characteristics were determined through Fisher's exact and logistic regression.Results: Among 79 included systematic reviews, 44 instances of spin were identified spanning 43% of our sample (34/79). Of the nine forms of spin, eight were found with a majority of instances being "selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes" (13/44, 29.5% of cases). The majority of articles were rated as critically low quality (51/79, 64.6%). No association was found between the presence of spin and extracted study characteristics.Conclusions: Spin was found in more than 40% of systematic review abstracts that evaluated pharmacotherapies in the treatment of AUD. Coupled with the finding that the majority of systematic reviews on the subject were of low quality, increased awareness of spin among physicians may be warranted.