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
OBJECTIVE: The extent of intervention reporting in emergency medicine journals remains unclear. The primary objective is to assess overall completion of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist described in emergency medicine randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The secondary outcomes were to (1) compare reporting before and after TIDieR publication; (2) evaluate factors associated with intervention reporting. METHODS: Our cross-sectional study used Google Scholar's metrics to identify seven emergency medicine journals; of which, we randomly sampled 300 articles. Using two PubMed searches, we extracted 150 RCTs before and after publications of TIDieR. Two investigators independently extracted data. The primary analysis to measure overall completion included descriptive statistics for each checklist item. Our secondary analysis used an interrupted time series analysis and generalized estimating equations to determine the effect of TIDieR publication on intervention reporting. RESULTS: Our initial search yielded 635 articles; from which, we randomly sampled 300 articles. We excluded 67 articles, leaving 233 for analysis. The mean number of TIDieR items reported was 5.4 (standard deviation = 1.18). Of the 233 trials, 42.9% provided information about materials, 67% provided intervention procedures, and 99.1% provided intervention delivery. The least reported items were intervention modifications (2.6%), intervention adherence assessment methods (3.4%), and intervention adherence assessment outcomes (2.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of intervention reporting is suboptimal in emergency medicine journals, necessitating improvement. The current state of adherence could be improved through the combined efforts of journal editors, major editorial organizations, and authors.