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.

Reporting of Complications in Rhinoplasty Randomized Controlled Trials: An Analysis Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) focused on rhinoplasty, using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension for Harms checklist. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional design was employed to review RCTs related to rhinoplasty published between January 1, 2005, and January 28, 2022. SETTING: The study analyzed clinical trials on rhinoplasty retrieved from PubMed. METHODS: We performed a comprehension search on PubMed, blind and duplicate screening, and data extraction. Adherence to the 18 recommendations of the CONSORT Extension for Harms was evaluated, with 1 point assigned for each adhered item. Percent adherence was calculated based on the 18 points, taking into account the multiple subcategories within some recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Our search returned 240 articles, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. No RCTs adhered to all 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items. Twenty-six (26/56, 46.4%) adhered to ≥50% of the items, and 30 (30/56, 53.6%) adhered to ≥33.3% of the items. Seven (7/56, 12.5%) RCTs adhered to no items. Across all RCTs, the average number of CONSORT-Harms items adhered to was 7.2 (7.2/18, 40.0%). The most adhered to item was item 10. Discussion balanced with regard to efficacy and AEs (80.4%, [70.0-90.8]). CONCLUSION: This study highlights the inadequacy of AE reporting in rhinoplasty RCTs according to CONSORT-Harms guidelines. Urgent efforts are required to bridge this reporting gap and enhance transparency in surgical research, ultimately safeguarding patient well-being.

An Evaluation of Primary Studies Published in Predatory Journals Included in Systematic Reviews From High-Impact Dermatology Journals: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Predatory publishing is a deceptive form of publishing that uses unethical business practices, minimal to no peer review processes, or limited editorial oversight to publish articles. It may be problematic to our highest standard of scientific evidence-systematic reviews-through the inclusion of poor-quality and unusable data, which could mislead results, challenge outcomes, and undermine confidence. Thus, there is a growing concern surrounding the effects predatory publishing may have on scientific research and clinical decision-making. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether systematic reviews published in top dermatology journals contain primary studies published in suspected predatory journals (SPJs). METHODS: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published in the top five dermatology journals (determined by 5-year h-indices) between January 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. Primary studies were extracted from each systematic review, and the publishing journal of these primary studies was cross-referenced using Beall's List and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked, duplicate fashion. We performed chi-square tests to determine possible associations between a systematic review's inclusion of a primary study published in a SPJ and particular study characteristics. RESULTS: Our randomized sample included 100 systematic reviews, of which 31 (31%) were found to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. Of the top five dermatology journals, the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology had the most systematic reviews containing a primary study published in an SPJ. Systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis or registered protocol were significantly less likely to contain a primary study published in a SPJ. No statistically significant associations were found between other study characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Studies published in SPJs are commonly included as primary studies in systematic reviews published in high-impact dermatology journals. Future research is needed to investigate the effects of including suspected predatory publications in scientific research.

Clinical trial registry searches are under-utilized in systematic reviews from critical care journals: A bibliometric analysis.

PURPOSE: Publication bias has a significant impact on the results of systematic reviews. Clinical trial registry searches, which include unpublished research, should be conducted when performing systematic reviews to reduce publication bias. We aimed to analyze the use of clinical trial registry searches in critical care systematic reviews. METHODS: Systematic reviews published between 01/01/2010-02/18/2020 from the top 5 critical care journals were extracted from PubMed and screened for trial registry use. Additionally, of the studies not performing registry searches, we assessed ClinicalTrials.gov for potentially relevant trials that were missed by not performing a registry search. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty six systematic reviews were analyzed, of which 37 (11.3%) performed trial registry searches. Of the studies not performing clinical trial registry searches, 56% had at least 1 potentially relevant trial that was missed. CONCLUSIONS: The omission of relevant, unpublished clinical trial results may be negatively impacting the accuracy of critical care systematic reviews. We recommend all systematic reviewers conduct clinical trial registry searches to reduce publication bias.

Smoking and Physical Activity Patterns of U.S. Military Veterans With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: An Analysis of 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in U.S. military veterans is higher than that of non-veterans. Smoking and physical activity behaviors of veterans with COPD have not been studied. Therefore, our objective was to determine whether smoking and physical activity behaviors of veterans with COPD differ from non-veterans with COPD. Our secondary objective was to describe lifestyle behaviors of veterans after being diagnosed with COPD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of lifestyle behaviors in veterans and non-veterans with COPD from the 2017 BRFSS was conducted. Logistic regression models were constructed to obtain adjusted risk ratios (ARRs). All confidence intervals (CIs) were reported at 95%. RESULTS: The prevalence of COPD among veterans was 14.2% (13.45-14.99) and 11.1% (10.82-11.41) among the non-veteran population (X2: F(1, 250,985) = 62.71, P < 0.01) (n = 37,532, N = 16,587,340). Veterans with COPD were significantly less likely to have a quit attempt in the past 12 months (ARR = 0.89, CI 0.81-0.97). Female veterans were significantly more likely to be current smokers (ARR = 1.28, CI 1.06-1.55) and less likely to meet aerobic physical activity recommendations (ARR = 0.71, CI 0.54-0.93) compared with male veterans. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans were significantly more likely to have COPD compared with non-veterans. Additionally, female veterans were significantly more likely to be current smokers following a diagnosis of COPD, which was not significant in male veterans, and both sexes were less likely to have a quit attempt compared with non-veterans. Finally, both male and female veterans were less likely to meet aerobic physical activity recommendations compared with non-veterans. Our findings suggest that further efforts should be made to increase the frequency of quit attempts and improve smoking rates and physical activity in veterans with COPD.

Scholarly Research Productivity among Otolaryngology Residency Graduates and its Relationship to Future Academic Achievement.

OBJECTIVE: Scholastic activity through research involvement is a fundamental aspect of a physician's training and may have a significant influence on future academic success. Here, we explore publication rates before, during, and after otolaryngology residency training and whether publication efforts correlate with future academic achievement. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis included a random sample of 50 otolaryngology residency programs. From these programs, we assembled a list of residents graduating from the years in 2013, 2014, and 2015. Using SCOPUS, PubMed, and Google Scholar, we compiled the publications for each graduate, and data were extracted in an independent, double-blinded fashion. RESULTS: We included 32 otolaryngology residency programs representing 249 residents in this analysis. Graduates published a mean of 1.3 (SD = 2.7) articles before residency, 3.5 (SD = 4.3) during residency, and 5.3 (SD = 9.3) after residency. Residents who pursued a fellowship had more total publications (t247 = -6.1, P < .001) and more first author publications (t247 = -5.4, P < .001) than residents without fellowship training. Graduates who chose a career in academic medicine had a higher number of mean total publications (t247 = -8.2, P < .001) and first author publications (t247 = -7.9, P < .001) than those who were not in academic medicine. There was a high positive correlation between residency program size and publications during residency (r = 0.76). CONCLUSION: Research productivity correlated with a number of characteristics such as future fellowship training, the pursuit of an academic career, and overall h-index in this study.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements. RESULTS: Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. DISCUSSION: The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses. CONCLUSION: Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Systematic Review Authors Investigating Interventions for Achilles Tendon Ruptures.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of our study was to evaluate the effects of undisclosed financial conflicts of interest in Achilles tendon rupture repair-focused systematic reviews. METHODS: Following a cross-sectional study design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for Achilles tendon rupture repair systematic reviews. We performed screening and data extraction in a blind, triplicate fashion. Each systematic review was evaluated on the individual characteristics of the study, presence of undisclosed and disclosed conflicts of interest, favorability of results and conclusions, and the relationship between conflicts of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. RESULTS: Our search produced 172 total systematic reviews pertaining to Achilles tendon rupture repair; of those, only 12 were included in our study. Undisclosed conflicts of interest were found in half (6/12) of the included reviews. However, no significant association was found between conflict of interest and the favorability of results and conclusions. CONCLUSION: Undisclosed conflicts of interests were discovered in a large percentage of our sample. This lack of disclosure did not appear to increase the likelihood of the systematic review results or conclusions reporting favorability of the intervention being investigated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.