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

Funding and conclusions of network meta-analyses on targeted therapies in inflammatory diseases: an overview

OBJECTIVES

To explore the association between industry funding and network meta-analyses' (NMAs) conclusion, and the use in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) of NMAs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This was an overview of NMAs and CPGs. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and several guideline databases up to February 18th 2023. We included CPGs from the last 5 years and NMAs of randomized controlled trials that evaluated targeted therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Data extraction and outcome assessments were done in duplicate by independent authors.

RESULTS

We included 216 NMAs and 99 CPGs. 31% (67/216) were industry-funded. The proportion of industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as being best was 44% (25/57) compared to 26% (30/116) for nonindustry-funded (OR = 2.24 [1.15-4.39]; aOR = 1.76 [0.81-3.81]). The abstract's conclusion of 39/67 (58%) industry-funded and 69/149 (46%) nonindustry-funded NMAs were considered unsupported by the results (OR = 1.61 [0.90-2.89]; aOR = 1.40 [0.71-2.78]). All industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as best cited their own sponsored drug. 59/99 (60%) CPGs included at least one NMA, with 23/59 (39%) of them citing industry-funded NMAs.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence that industry-funded NMAs were more likely to have unsupported conclusions or to cite only one treatment as being best in their conclusions compared to non-industry-funded NMAs. However, almost all industry-funded NMAs favored their own treatments. Even though 40% of the CPGs did not rely on NMA, over a third of those who did used industry-funded NMAs. Limitations include the possible misclassification due to undisclosed funding and potential confounders that have not been accounted for.

Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: The Presence of Spin in the Abstract

BACKGROUND

Spin is a form of reporting bias which suggests a treatment is beneficial despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in outcomes. Our purpose was to define the prevalence of spin within the abstracts of distal radius fracture (DRF) systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA). We also sought to identify article characteristics that were more likely to contain spin.

METHODS

We performed a SR of multiple databases to identify DRF SRs and MAs. Articles were screened and analyzed by 3 reviewers. We recorded article and journal characteristics including adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, funding disclosures, methodologic quality (AMSTAR 2 instrument), impact factor, and country of origin. Presence of the 9 most severe types of spin in abstracts were recorded. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to analyze the association between article characteristics and the presence of spin.

RESULTS

A total of 112 articles were included. Spin was present in 46% of abstracts, with type 1 spin ("conclusions not supported by findings") most frequent (19%). Spin was present in 43% of abstracts in PRISMA-adhering journals compared to 49% in journals that did not (OR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-1.68). For articles originating from China, spin was present in 61% of abstracts compared to 39% of abstracts from other countries (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.13-5.75).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to low article quality, there are high rates of spin within the abstracts of SRs and MAs related to treatment of DRF. Articles within journals that adhere to PRISMA do not appear to contain less spin.