Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions.

BACKGROUND: Spin - the misrepresentation of a study's results - has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine. OBJECTIVES: This study's primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin. METHODS: We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. RESULTS: Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

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.

Do Author Conflicts of Interest and Industry Sponsorship Influence Outcomes of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding Glaucoma Interventions? A Cross-sectional Analysis.

PRCIS: In our sample of systematic reviews focusing on treatments for glaucoma, reviews conducted by authors with a conflict of interest were more likely to reach favorable conclusions compared with reviews without conflicted authors. PURPOSE: Previous studies have demonstrated that authors' conflict of interest can influence outcomes of systematic reviews. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether the presence of 1 of more conflicts was associated with more favorable results and conclusions in systematic reviews of glaucoma interventions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE and Embase were searched for systematic reviews of glaucoma treatments published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. Author conflicts of interest were located using multiple databases (eg, CMS Open Payments Database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO) and previously published disclosure statements. Study sponsorship was determined using each review's funding disclosure statement. RESULTS: Our study included 26 systematic reviews conducted by 108 authors. Of these reviews, 9 (35%) were conducted by at least 1 author with an undisclosed conflict of interest. Of those 9, 3 (33%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 5 (56%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 17 systematic reviews with no conflicted authors, 1 (6%) reported results favoring the treatment group, and 2 (12%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. The Fisher exact tests demonstrated that these differences held a statistically significant association between author conflicts and the favorability of the reviews' conclusions toward the treatment group (P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: We found that systematic reviews conducted by 1 or more authors with conflicts of interest were more likely than those with no conflicted authors to draw favorable conclusions about the investigated intervention.