Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines. METHODS: All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% (P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time (P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.

An Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

Spin is a way of reporting that distorts the true findings; we sought to investigate the prevalence of spin in systematic review abstracts on psoriasis treatments and whether study characteristics were associated with spin. We searched MEDLINE and Embase to obtain our sample. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the 9 most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. The methodological quality was assessed to explore potential relationships between spin and study quality. Search queries returned 3200 articles, which included 173 systematic reviews. Spin was present in systematic review abstracts. Preventing spin is essential for improving future systematic reviews.

A decade of systematic reviews: an assessment of Weill Cornell Medicine's systematic review service.

Background: The Weill Cornell Medicine, Samuel J. Wood Library's Systematic Review (SR) service began in 2011, with 2021 marking a decade of service. This paper will describe how the service policies have grown and will break down our service quantitatively over the past 11 years to examine SR timelines and trends. Case Presentation: We evaluated 11 years (2011-2021) of SR request data from our in-house documentation. In the years assessed, there have been 319 SR requests from 20 clinical departments, leading to 101 publications with at least one librarian collaborator listed as co-author. The average review took 642 days to publication, with the longest at 1408 days, and the shortest at 94 days. On average, librarians spent 14.7 hours in total on each review. SR projects were most likely to be abandoned at the title/abstract screening phase. Several policies have been put into place over the years in order to accommodate workflows and demand for our service. Discussion: The SR service has seen several changes since its inception in 2011. Based on the findings and emerging trends discussed here, our service will inevitably evolve further to adapt to these changes, such as machine learning-assisted technology.

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinical trials. Little is known about spin in systematic reviews. DESIGN: We performed a cross-sectional analysis searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to antiplatelet therapies following acute coronary syndrome on 2 June 2020. Data were extracted evaluating the presence of spin and study characteristics, including methodological quality as rated by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). All data extraction was conducted in a masked, duplicate manner from 2 June 2020 to 26 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Not applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed abstracts of systematic reviews on antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and evaluated the prevalence of the nine most severe types of spin. We additionally explored associations between spin and certain study characteristics, including quality. RESULTS: Our searches returned 15 263 articles, and 185 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Of these 185 reviews, 31.9% (59/185) contained some form of spin in the abstract. Seven forms of spin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9) among the nine most severe were identified. No instances of types 6 or 8 were found. There were no statistically significant relationships between spin and the evaluated study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 appraisals. CONCLUSIONS: Spin was present in abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; subsequent studies are needed to identify correlations between spin and specific study characteristics. There were no statistically significant associations between spin and study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings; however, implementing changes will ensure that spin is reduced in the field of cardiology as well as other fields of medicine.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to postoperative nausea and vomiting.

INTRODUCTION: Spin - the beautification of study results to emphasise benefits or minimise harms - is a deceptive reporting strategy with the potential to affect clinical decision-making adversely. Few studies have investigated the extent of spin in systematic reviews. Here, we sought to address this gap by evaluating the presence of the nine most severe forms of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews on treatments for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). PONV has the potential to increase hospital costs and patient burden, adversely affecting outcomes. METHODS: We developed search strategies for MEDLINE and Embase to identify systematic reviews focused on PONV. Following title and abstract screening of the reviews identified during the initial search, those that met inclusion criteria were evaluated for the presence of spin and received a revised AMSTAR-2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) appraisal by two investigators in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. RESULTS: Our systematic search returned 3513 studies, of which 130 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible for data extraction. We found that 29.2% of included systematic reviews contained spin (38/130). Eight of the nine types of spin were identified, with spin type 3 ('selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favouring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention') being the most common. Associations were found between spin and funding source. Spin was more likely in the abstracts of privately funded than nonfunded studies, odds ratio (OR) 2.81 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.66 to 11.98]. In the abstracts of studies not mentioning funding spin was also more likely than in nonfunded studies, OR 2.30 (95% CI, 0.61 to 8.70). Neither of these results were statistically significant. Significance was found in the association between the presence of spin and AMSTAR-2 ratings: 'low' quality studies were less likely to contain spin than 'high' quality, OR 0.24 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88): 'critically low' studies were also less likely to contain spin than 'high' quality studies, OR 0.21 (95% CI, 0.07 to 0.65). There were no other associations between spin and the remaining extracted study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings. CONCLUSION: Spin was present in greater than 29% of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding PONV. Various stakeholders must take steps to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on PONV.

Quality of recent clinical practice guidelines in anaesthesia publications using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument.

Clinical practice guidelines are a valuable resource aiding medical decision-making based on scientific evidence. In anaesthesia, guidelines are increasing in both number and scope, influencing individual practice and shaping local departmental policy. The aim of this review is to assess the quality of clinical practice guidelines published in high impact anaesthesia journals over the past 5 yr using the internationally validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. A literature search was conducted in Scopus to identify all guidelines published in the top 10 anaesthesia journals as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor from 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for analysis by five independent appraisers using AGREE II. Each guideline was assessed across six domains and 23 items. Individual domain scores were calculated with a threshold agreed via consensus to represent high-quality guidelines. There was a significant increase in overall score over time (P=0.041), driven by Domain 3 (Rigour of Development, P=0.046). The raw overall score for Domain 3, however, was low. The other domains performed as expected based on previous studies, with Domains 1, 4, and 6 achieving high scores and Domains 2 and 5 incurring poor ratings. Most guidelines studied involved international collaboration but emerged from a single professional society. Use of an appraisal tool was stated as high but poorly detailed. The improvement in the overall score of guidelines and rigour of development is promising; however, only seven guidelines met high-quality criteria, suggesting room for improvement for the overall integrity of guidelines in anaesthesia.

Systematic review of current natural language processing methods and applications in cardiology.

Natural language processing (NLP) is a set of automated methods to organise and evaluate the information contained in unstructured clinical notes, which are a rich source of real-world data from clinical care that may be used to improve outcomes and understanding of disease in cardiology. The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an understanding of NLP, review how it has been used to date within cardiology and illustrate the opportunities that this approach provides for both research and clinical care. We systematically searched six scholarly databases (ACM Digital Library, Arxiv, Embase, IEEE Explore, PubMed and Scopus) for studies published in 2015-2020 describing the development or application of NLP methods for clinical text focused on cardiac disease. Studies not published in English, lacking a description of NLP methods, non-cardiac focused and duplicates were excluded. Two independent reviewers extracted general study information, clinical details and NLP details and appraised quality using a checklist of quality indicators for NLP studies. We identified 37 studies developing and applying NLP in heart failure, imaging, coronary artery disease, electrophysiology, general cardiology and valvular heart disease. Most studies used NLP to identify patients with a specific diagnosis and extract disease severity using rule-based NLP methods. Some used NLP algorithms to predict clinical outcomes. A major limitation is the inability to aggregate findings across studies due to vastly different NLP methods, evaluation and reporting. This review reveals numerous opportunities for future NLP work in cardiology with more diverse patient samples, cardiac diseases, datasets, methods and applications.

Supporting Consensus Statements: Considerations and Recommendations for a Systematic Review Service.

Increasingly, a critical eye has been placed on the methodological quality of consensus statements. As expert systematic review (SR) methodologists, librarians are often called on to support consensus statement work. Using the Weill Cornell Medicine Samuel J. Wood Library's SR Service experience as a guide, the aim of this paper is to answer three main questions regarding librarians supporting consensus statement work: (1) What is a consensus statement? (2) What is consensus statement methodology and how does this compare to practice guidelines? (3) What are important and practical points to consider when supporting this kind of request?

Spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.

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.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of obesity.

OBJECTIVE: Spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of research findings, has the potential to affect patient care. Evidence suggests that spin is prevalent in obesity randomized controlled trials. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate spin in abstracts of systematic reviews covering obesity treatments. METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to retrieve systematic reviews on obesity treatments. Each systematic review abstract was inspected for the nine most severe types of spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of study findings by exaggeration or omission, regardless of intentionality. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, triplicate fashion. Methodological quality was determined using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). RESULTS: Spin was identified in 20 (out of 200, 10%) abstracts, with spin type 5 (claiming efficacy despite high risk of bias among primary studies) being most common (11/200, 5.5%). Spin types 2 and 7, both related to unsupported efficacy claims, were not found. No associations were found between spin and extracted study characteristics. The methodological quality of the sample was rated as follows: critically low (23.0%), low (13.5%), moderate (60.5%), and high (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Although these findings demonstrate a low proportion of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews for obesity treatment; increased preventive measures may further reduce its presence.

Evaluating spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on cannabis use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians rely upon abstracts to provide them quick synopses of research findings that may apply to their practice. Spin can exist within these abstracts that distorts or misrepresents the findings. Our goal was to evaluate the level of spin within systematic reviews (SRs) focused on the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in May 2020. To meet inclusion criteria, publications had to be either an SR or meta-analysis related to the treatment of cannabis use. Screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate and masked fashion. Study quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 Results: 16/24 SRs (66.7%) contained at least one form of spin in the abstract. The most common forms of spin identified were type 3-selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention (45.8%)-and type 8-the review's findings from a surrogate marker or a specific outcome to the global improvement of the disease (37.5%). No significant association between spin and intervention type, PRISMA requirements, or funding source was identified. Weak positive correlations were found between the presence of spin and abstract word count (r =.217) and between spin and AMSTAR-2 rating (r = 0.143). "Moderate" was the most common AMSTAR-2 rating (9/24, 37.5%), followed by "low" (7/24, 29.2%) and "critically low" (7/24, 29.2%). One systematic review received an AMSTAR-2 rating of "high" (1/24, 4.2%). Conclusions: Spin was common among abstracts from the SRs focused on the treatments for CUD. Higher quality studies may help reduce the overall rate as well as standardizing treatment outcomes. To facilitate this, we encourage all authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to be more aware of the various types of spin as they can help reduce the overall amount of spin seen within the literature.

Spin Infrequently Occurs in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews For The Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

AIMS: Currently, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that spin - the misinterpretation and distortion of a study's findings - is common in different fields of medicine. To our knowledge, no study has investigated its presence in systematic reviews focused on diabetic therapies. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study by searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our search retrieved 26,490 records, from which 199 studies were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study design parameters. Spin was presented as frequencies and odds ratios to identify associations between study characteristics. RESULTS: Spin was identified in the abstracts of 15 systematic reviews (15/199, 7.5%). Spin type 5 was the most common type identified (7/199, 3.5%). Spin types 1, 2, 4, and 8 were not identified. In the last 5 years (2016-2021), 7 systematic reviews contained spin within their abstract. There was no association between spins presence and any extracted study characteristic . CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, any amount of spin can lead to the distortion of a reader's interpretation of the study's findings. Thus, we provide recommendations with rationale to prevent spin in future systematic reviews.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation.

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.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Tinnitus.

HYPOTHESIS: The objective was to investigate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. We hypothesized that spin would be present in these articles and a significant relationship would exist between spin usage and extracted study characteristics. BACKGROUND: Spin, the misrepresentation of study findings, can alter a clinician's interpretation of a study's results, potentially affecting patient care. Previous work demonstrates that spin is present in abstracts of randomized clinical trials. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional analysis, we conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE and Embase databases on June 2, 2020, for systematic reviews focused on tinnitus treatment. Investigators performed screening and data extraction in a masked, duplicate fashion. RESULTS: Forty systematic reviews met inclusion criteria, and spin was identified in four of them. Spin in abstracts most frequently occurred when conclusions claimed the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies (n = 3). The other form of spin found was the conclusion claims safety based on nonstatistically significant results with a wide confidence interval (n = 1). There was no significant association between spin and any of our extracted study characteristics. CONCLUSION: Spin was observed in 10% of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. Although this percentage may be small, we recommend that medical journals provide a more detailed framework for abstract structure and require the inclusion of risk of bias assessment results in abstracts to prevent the incorporation of spin.

Achieving universal genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer: Are we there yet? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Several professional organizations recommend universal genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer as identifying pathogenic variants can affect treatment, prognosis, and all-cause mortality for patients and relatives. We sought to evaluate the literature on genetic assessment for women with ovarian cancer and determine if any interventions or patient characteristics drive utilization of services. METHODS: We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated genetic assessment for people with ovarian cancer. Trials with the primary aim to evaluate utilization of genetic assessment with or without interventions were included. Eligible trials were subjected to meta-analysis and the moderating influence of health interventions on rates of genetic assessment were examined. RESULTS: A total of 35 studies were included (19 report on utilization of genetic services without an intervention, 7 with an intervention, and 9 with both scenarios). Without an intervention, pooled estimates for referral to genetic counseling and completion of genetic testing were 39% [CI 27-53%] and 30% [CI 19-44%]. Clinician-facilitated interventions included: mainstreaming of genetic services (99% [CI 86-100%]), telemedicine (75% [CI 43-93%]), clinic-embedded genetic counselor (76% [CI 32-95%]), reflex tumor somatic genetic assessment (64% [CI 17-94%]), universal testing (57% [28-82%]), and referral forms (26% [CI 10-53%]). Random-effects pooled proportions demonstrated that Black vs. White race was associated with a lower rate of genetic testing (26%[CI 17-38%] vs. 40% [CI 25-57%]) as was being un-insured vs. insured (23% [CI 18-28%] vs. 38% [CI 26-53%]). CONCLUSIONS: Reported rates of genetic testing for people with ovarian cancer remain well below the goal of universal testing. Interventions such as mainstreaming can improve testing uptake. Strategies aimed at improving utilization of genetic services should consider existing disparities in race and insurance status.

Over 30% of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Rotator Cuff Tear Treatments Contained Spin in the Abstract.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatments for rotator cuff tears and whether various study and publishing journal characteristics were associated with the presence of spin. METHODS: A search strategy was developed for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for rotator cuff tears. For an article to be included, it must meet the following criteria: (1) the article must be a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis, (2) the article must pertain to the treatment of rotator cuff tears, (3) the article must only contain human subjects, and (4) the article must be accessible in English. Systematic reviews were analyzed for spin using a previously developed classification scheme in a masked, duplicate manner. Binary logistic regression was used to examine independent associations via unadjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals between the presence of spin and study characteristics. RESULTS: Search queries returned 932 articles, of which 121 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible. A total of 36.4% (44/121) of systematic reviews contained spin. Among the general characteristics evaluated, there were no correlations with spin. CONCLUSIONS: Spin was present in more than one-third of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering rotator cuff tear treatments. Spin was not associated with any general study or journal characteristics, which indicates that clinicians must be aware of the potential presence of spin in all such abstracts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clinicians rely on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially abstracts of these articles, to provide succinct guidance on best practices in patient care. The presence of spin could adversely affect patient care; thus, steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on rotator cuff tear treatment.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of alcohol use disorder.

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.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on opioid use disorder.

BACKGROUND: Spin, or the inappropriate formatting of information to emphasize certain outcomes, should not be present in research. This study focuses on identifying and characterizing the presence of spin in systematic review and meta-analysis abstracts that focus on the treatment of opioid use disorder. Methods: Search strategies were developed to identify studies pertaining to the treatment of opioid use disorder. The studies were then screened by two authors. These qualifying studies were then evaluated for the presence of spin within their abstracts by two trained authors. These studies were also evaluated by the AMSTAR-2 standards to evaluate the quality of the qualifying systematic reviews by two trained reviewers. Results: The sample in this study included 113 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Spin was present in 20 of these studies (20/113, 17.7%). The most common spin form was spin type 3 (6/20, 30%), followed by types 5 and 9 (both 4/20, 20%), type 6 (3/20, 15%), type 7 (2/20, 10%), and type 8 (1/20, 5%). The remaining spin types 1, 2, and 4 were not present in the sample. Of the 113 included studies, the most common intervention type was pharmacologic (93/113, 82%). No significant association was found between the quality of a systematic review and the presence of spin. Conclusions: Findings in this study show positive trends in prevalence of five forms of spin evaluated in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses looking at treatments for opioid use disorder. However, study quality had no significant association with the presence of spin. Misrepresentation of results, or spin, may alter a clinician's perceptions about treatment efficacies. Therefore, increasing physician awareness of spin may improve clinical decision-making.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies.

PURPOSE: Spin-the misrepresentation of study findings such that the beneficial effects of an intervention are magnified beyond what the results actually show-is a reporting practice that has been shown to influence perceptions of treatment efficacy and clinical decision making. We evaluated the extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of cataract surgery and its complications. We also evaluated whether particular study attributes were associated with spin. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to cataract treatment. From these search records, screening for eligible studies was done in duplicate. Using a previously developed classification system for spin, we assessed the systematic reviews that met our eligibility criteria for the occurrence of the 9 most severe forms of spin. We performed the evaluation of spin, extracted study characteristics, and appraised the methodological quality of each study using the 16-question AMSTAR-2 scale in duplicate. RESULTS: Searches retrieved 2,059 studies, of which 110 were eligible for data extraction. We found at least 1 form of spin in 30.0% of included systematic reviews (33/110). Six of the 9 types of spin were identified in our sample, the most common being type 3 in 18.2% (20/110) of abstracts. We found no significant association between spin in abstracts, AMSTAR-2 appraisal, and any of the extracted study characteristics. CONCLUSION: Spin was evident in approximately one-third of the abstracts of evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses of cataract surgery and associated complications.