Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Emergency Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials

Assessment of Noninferiority Margins in Cardiovascular Medicine Trials

Background

Noninferiority trials are increasingly common in cardiovascular medicine, but their reporting and interpretation are challenging, particularly when an absolute risk difference is used as noninferiority margin.

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate the effect of using absolute rather than relative noninferiority margins in cardiovascular trials.

Methods

We reviewed noninferiority trials presented at major cardiovascular conferences from 2015 to 2022 and published within the same period. Based on the actual versus anticipated event rates in the control group, we recalculated the absolute noninferiority margin and re-assessed the trial results. The primary outcome of interest was the proportion of trials with a different interpretation after recalculation. Additionally, we analyzed the conclusion statements of these trials to determine if cautionary notes for the interpretation of study results were included.

Results

We analyzed a total of 768 trials, of which 88 had a noninferiority design and 66 used an absolute noninferiority margin. Of 48 comparisons from 45 trials qualifying for the analysis, 11 (22.9%) had divergent results after recalculation of the absolute noninferiority margin based on the observed rather than anticipated event rate. Ten trials originally claiming noninferiority, did not meet it after the margin recalculation. All of them did not include statements suggesting cautionary interpretation of the study results in the conclusion section. Compared with the other trials, these displayed a larger median difference between anticipated and recalculated noninferiority margins (44.7% [IQR: 38.6%-56.7%] vs 15.3% [IQR: -1.5% to 28.9%]; P < 0.001).

Conclusions

Recalculating noninferiority margins based on actual event rates, rather than anticipated ones, led to different outcomes in approximately 1 out of 4 cardiovascular trials, with most divergent trials lacking cautionary interpretation. These findings emphasize the importance of using or supplementing the relative noninferiority margin, particularly in studies with significant deviations between observed and expected event rates. This underscores the critical need for enhanced methodological and reporting standards in noninferiority trials, especially those employing absolute margins.

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism for cancer patients in randomized controlled trials: a bibliographical analysis of funding and trial characteristics

Background

The majority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in patients with cancer involve commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship overcomes feasibility limitations inherent in RCTs, such as recruitment and funding, but has attracted scrutiny for its potential for bias.

Objectives

In RCTs of VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer, how do trial characteristics compare between commercially sponsored RCTs and noncommercially sponsored RCTs?

Methods

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for RCTs that investigated at least 1 pharmacologic intervention for VTE prophylaxis in adult patients with cancer. Screening and data extraction were conducted by independent reviewers. Outcomes included trial characteristics, reporting of favorable outcomes, protocol-manuscript discrepancies, and appraisal of spin. Outcomes were compared using the independent t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, Pearson chi-squared test, and Fisher's exact test. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with possible bias.

Results

Of the 54 trials analyzed, 34 (63%) reported commercial sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship was not associated with the reporting of favorable outcomes, presence of spin, retrospective registration, or protocol-manuscript discrepancy. Spin was most prevalent in the abstract conclusions (9 out of 17 [53.3%]) and manuscript conclusions (8 out of 17 [46.7%]).Commercially sponsored trials had a higher rate of intention-to-treat analysis. Noncommercially sponsored trials were more likely to report retrospective registration of trial protocol and the use of composite primary outcomes.

Conclusion

There were few significant differences between trial characteristics, suggesting that the evidence from commercially sponsored trials investigating VTE prophylaxis in patients with cancer is unlikely to be subject to bias attributable to commercial sponsorship.

Errors and complications in clinical periodontal practice due to methodologic bias and bad interpretation of the evidence

Different types of errors and complications may arise during and after the execution of periodontal or implant-related procedures. Some of the most relevant, although also controversial, and less commented, causative agents of errors and complications are methodological biases and bad interpretation of the evidence. Proper assessment of the literature requires of solid clinical knowledge combined with a systematic approach built on the recognition of common methodological biases and the avoidance of interpretive errors to critically retrieve, dissect, and judiciously apply available information for the promotion of periodontal and peri-implant health. This review addresses common types of methodological bias and interpretive errors that can alter the reader's perceptions on the real effect and potential ramifications of the reported outcomes of a given therapeutic approach due to bad interpretation of the available evidence: (1) types of methodological biases; (2) spin and interpretive bias; (3) interpretation pitfalls when assessing the evidence (4) choice of relevant endpoints to answer the question(s) of interest; and (5) balance between statistical significance and clinical relevance.

Evaluation of Spin in the Clinical Literature of Suture Tape Augmentation for Ankle Instability

Background

Spin is defined as the use of specific reporting strategies to highlight the beneficial effect of a treatment despite nonsignificant results. The presence of spin in peer-reviewed literature can negatively impact clinical and research practices. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and types of spin present in primary studies and systematic reviews using suture tape augmentation for ankle instability as a model.

Methods

This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Extracted data included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and PROSPERO registration. Full texts of systematic reviews were used in the assessment of study quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2).

Results

Nineteen studies were included in the final sample. At least 1 type of spin was identified in each study except one (18 of 19, 94.7%). The most common type of spin observed was type 3 ("selective reporting or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention") (6 of 19, 31.6%), The second most reported category of spin was type 4 ("the conclusion claims safety based on non-statistically significant results with a wide confidence interval") (4 of 19, 21.1%). Among systematic reviews, we identified type 5 ("the conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") in 4 out of 6 (66.7%) of the articles that were included. No significant associations were found between study characteristics and type of spin.

Conclusion

In this exploration of the introduction of a new technology, we identified spin to be highly present in the abstracts of primary studies and systematic reviews concerning suture tape augmentation for ankle instability. Steps should be taken by scientific journals to ensure that spin is minimized in the abstract to accurately reflect the quality of the intervention.

Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Orthopaedics: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Background

Systematic reviews on the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in orthopaedic surgery are abundant in current published literature. However, a beautification of results (referred to as spin) has been noted in abstracts across various aspects of medicine.

Purpose

To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews of PRP-related orthopaedic surgery abstracts.

Study Design

Cross-sectional study.

Methods

Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and Murad and Wang guidelines, we conducted a search in Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Database for reviews on PRP-related orthopaedic surgery. The search included studies published from inception until June 30, 2021. Included were systematic reviews written in English that involved the use of PRP in the treatment of orthopaedic injuries in human participants. The abstracts of the included reviews were evaluated for the top 9 types of spin as described by Yavchitz et al in 2016. We determined the relationship between spin and study characteristics using odds ratios.

Results

Of an initial 1560 studies, 176 were included. We found that 50 studies (28.4%) contained at least 1 form of spin. The 2 most common forms of spin found in our sample were type 5 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of treatment despite high risk of bias"; n = 27 [15.3%]) and type 3 ("Selective reporting or overemphasis of efficacy in outcomes favoring beneficial effect of intervention"; n = 18 [10.2%]). No statistical significance was found between study characteristics and the presence of spin.

Conclusion

Spin was present in 28% of the systematic reviews that covered PRP-related orthopaedic treatments. Spin was not associated with general study characteristics, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines or funding. Journals and authors should be aware of spin in articles and avoid its usage.

Spin in the Abstracts of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews: Midshaft Clavicle Fracture

OBJECTIVES

Spin is a reporting bias that presents the beneficial effect of an experimental treatment as greater than what is found in the results of the study. This bias can result in patient care recommendations that are more subjective than objective. The purpose of this study is to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analysis and systematic review abstracts regarding treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures.

METHODS

Electronic libraries (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar) were systematically searched. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding treatment of midshaft clavicular fractures were analyzed. The nine most severe types of spin commonly found in abstracts were used as an evaluation tool to assess the articles. Other variables analyzed include year of publication, journal impact factor, number of citations, and methodologic quality according to A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).

RESULTS

The database search resulted in 401 articles, of which 53 met inclusion criteria. After review, it was found that 52.8% (28/53) of the included articles contained spin within the abstract. Of the nine most severe types of spin found in abstracts, type 3 spin ("selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention") was found to be the most prevalent 28.3% (15/53).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated the presence of spin in the majority of meta-analyses and systematic review abstracts pertaining to midshaft clavicular fractures. Orthopedic surgeons should be aware and recognize spin as they review articles when deciding the treatment course for such injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.

Spin in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Operative Dentistry: A Cross-sectional Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the presence and characteristics of spin in recently published RCT abstracts in operative dentistry and to investigate potential factors associated with the presence of spin.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

The PubMed database was searched to identify parallel-group RCTs published between 2015 and 2019 in the field of operative dentistry, which compared two or more groups and had nonsignificant results for the primary outcome. Two authors evaluated independently the presence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with the presence of spin in the Results and the Conclusions sections, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 77 RCT abstracts were included, among which 58 (75.3%) showed at least one type of spin. Spin was identified in the Results and Conclusions sections of 32 (41.6%) and 45 (58.4%) abstracts, respectively. 19 RCTs (24.7%) presented spin in both the Results and the Conclusions section of abstracts. The presence of spin in the Results section of abstracts was significantly associated with source of funding (OR=8.10; p=0.025) and number of treatment arms was associated with the presence of spin in the Conclusions section of abstracts (OR=5.66; p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of operative dentistry RCTs abstracts is high.

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study's results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.

METHODS

We used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic.

RESULTS

A total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

We have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020.

Spin in the Scientific Literature on Bariatric Endoscopy: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Bariatric endoscopy (BE) is an emerging treatment option for people with obesity. Spin (i.e., the practice of frequent misrepresentation or overinterpretation of study findings) may lead to imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of the results. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the frequency and type of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of endoscopic primary weight loss techniques with statistically significant and nonsignificant primary outcomes. In conclusion, spin is observed in the abstract and main text of BE reports and can lead to misinterpretation or overinterpretation of the results. Since BE challenges the available non-endoscopic treatments for obesity, further research is needed to better qualify these techniques, as being effective and safe, as well as predefined hypotheses and analyses.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses

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.

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.

Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

OBJECTIVES

To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors.

RESULTS

Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

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 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 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.

Emotional tones in scientific writing: comparison of commercially funded studies and non-commercially funded orthopedic studies

Background and purpose - There is ongoing debate as to whether commercial funding influences reporting of medical studies. We asked: Is there a difference in reported tones between abstracts, introductions, and discussions of orthopedic journal studies that were commercially funded and those that were not commercially funded?Methods - We conducted a systematic PubMed search to identify commercially funded studies published in 20 orthopedic journals between January 1, 2000 and December 1, 2019. We identified commercial funding of studies by including in our search the names of 10 medical device companies with the largest revenue in 2019. Commercial funding was designated when either the study or 1 or more of the authors received funding from a medical device company directly related to the content of the study. We matched 138 commercially funded articles 1 to 1 with 138 non-commercially funded articles with the same study design, published in the same journal, within a time range of 5 years. The IBM Watson Tone Analyzer was used to determine emotional tones (anger, fear, joy, and sadness) and language style (analytical, confident, and tentative).Results - For abstract and introduction sections, we found no differences in reported tones between commercially funded and non-commercially funded studies. Fear tones (non-commercially funded studies 5.1%, commercially funded studies 0.7%, p = 0.04), and analytical tones (non-commercially funded studies 95%, commercially funded studies 88%, p = 0.03) were more common in discussions of studies that were not commercially funded.Interpretation - Commercially funded studies have comparable tones to non-commercially funded studies in the abstract and introduction. In contrast, the discussion of non-commercially funded studies demonstrated more fear and analytical tones, suggesting them to be more tentative, accepting of uncertainty, and dispassionate. As text analysis tools become more sophisticated and mainstream, it might help to discern commercial bias in scientific reports.

Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Ménière's Disease

OBJECTIVES

To identify, quantify, and characterize the presence of spin-specific strategies leading to misrepresentation of study results-in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Ménière's disease treatment.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase on May 28, 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on Ménière's disease treatment. Returned searches were screened, and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion.

RESULTS

Our sample included 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the 36 included studies, 22 (61.1%) abstracts contained spin while 14 (38.9%) did not. The most common spin types were selective reporting of benefit (10/36, 27.8%) or harm (8/36, 22.2%). Other types of spin occurred when findings were extrapolated to the global improvement of the disease (5/36, 13.9%), beneficial effects were reported with high risk of bias in primary studies (3/36, 8.3%), and when beneficial effects were extrapolated to an entire class of interventions (1/36, 2.8%). No instances of other spin types occurred. Abstracts containing spin were substantively associated with studies of critically low methodological quality compared with studies with low and moderate quality. No studies had a methodological rating of high quality. No associations were observed between spin and intervention types, journal recommendation of adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or funding. We found a negative correlation (r = -.31) between abstract word limit and presence of spin.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights that spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of Ménière's disease is common, and it further enhances the discussion surrounding spin in abstracts of scientific research. Spin in an abstract does not discredit a study's findings; however, its occurrence should be eliminated.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that many physicians rely solely on abstracts to make clinical decisions. However, many abstracts have been shown to be misleading. The primary objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of spin - bias towards particular results - within the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures, one of the most common osteoporotic fractures among elderly patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE and Embase databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses examining the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. The nine most severe types of spin that occur within abstracts were extracted along with study characteristics, including journal recommendations to adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and year in which the review was performed, to identify potential associations. We subsequently explored the association between spin and the methodological quality of a systematic review using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) appraisal instrument.

RESULTS

Our search retrieved 505 articles, of which 73 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. We found that 34.2% (25/73) of the included systematic reviews contained spin. Spin type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention) was the most common type identified (12/73, 16.4%). Three spin types were not identified in any of the abstracts. Spin was 3.2 (OR 3.2; 95% CI, 1.02-10.02) times more likely to be present in systematic reviews published in journals recommending adherence to PRISMA. Furthermore, the odds of an abstract containing spin was 1.25 (OR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52) times more likely to be present in systematic reviews for each year after 2000. No other study characteristics were associated with spin. The methodological quality of 24 studies were rated as "critically low" (32.9%), 14 were "low" (19.2%), 28 were "moderate" (38.4%), and 7 were "high" (9.6%), but these findings were not associated with spin.

CONCLUSION

Spin was present in systematic review abstracts regarding treatment of proximal humerus fractures. Measures such as education on the subject of spin and improved reporting standards should be implemented to increase awareness and reduce incidence of spin in abstracts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE OF THE STUDY PERFORMED

Basic Science Study; Research Methodology.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma

PURPOSE

Spin - the misrepresentation of the study's actual findings - carries the ability to distort a reader's perception of a treatments' full benefits and risks. Recent studies have suggested that spin is common in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews focused on treatments for a variety of medical disorders. Therefore, our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to glaucoma treatments. We further assessed whether specific study characteristics were associated with spin, including the methodological quality of a study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used a cross-sectional study design searching MEDLINE and Embase databases all for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on glaucoma treatments. Each abstract was assessed for the nine most severe - severity determined by likelihood of distorting a reader's perception - types of spin that occur in systematic review abstracts. The screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate, masked fashion. The methodological quality of each review was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) instrument. To evaluate relationships between spin, AMSTAR-2 appraisals, and other study characteristics, we used unadjusted odds ratios and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

Only three of the 102 abstracts contained spin, with spin type 5 being the most prevalent. No abstracts contained spin types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8, and no association was found between the presence of spin in an abstract and any particular study characteristic. Using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal instrument, 35 (34.3%) of the studies received a methodological quality rating as high, 42 (41.2%) as moderate, 11 (10.8%) as low, and 14 (13.7%) as critically low.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that's pin is present in only a small proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of glaucoma. In comparison to studies in other fields of medicine, ophthalmology appears to be a leader in publishing systematic reviews and meta-analyses with low rates of spin occurring in the abstract.

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis

INTRODUCTION

It is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses-and particularly abstracts of such articles-for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts. In this study, we evaluated the use of spin (ie, the misreporting of study findings by overstating or selectively reporting efficacy results, minimizing harms, or making unwarranted clinical recommendations) in the abstracts of systematic reviews on erectile dysfunction.

METHODS

A search strategy was developed using the MEDLINE and Embase databases to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for erectile dysfunction. 2 investigators independently screened the titles and abstracts from the reviews for study inclusion. Investigators analyzed the included systematic reviews for 9 of the most severe types of spin using a previously developed classification scheme and rated them for methodological quality using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate.

RESULTS

Our search returned 2,224 articles, of which 102 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. A total of 31.4% (32/102) of systematic reviews contained spin. 8 types of spin were identified in our sample. Type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes) and type 5 (conclusion claims beneficial effect despite high risk of bias) were the most common types of spin, each occurring in 10.8% (11/102) of abstracts. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the extracted study characteristics or methodological quality.

CONCLUSION

Spin was present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering erectile dysfunction treatments. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on erectile dysfunction treatment. Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Sex Med 2020;9:100284.

Statements About the Pervasiveness of Behavior Require Data About the Pervasiveness of Behavior

Despite recent close attention to issues related to the reliability of psychological research (e.g., the replication crisis), issues of the validity of this research have not been considered to the same extent. This paper highlights an issue that calls into question the validity of the common research practice of studying samples of individuals, and using sample-based statistics to infer generalizations that are applied not only to the parent population, but to individuals. The lack of ergodicity in human data means that such generalizations are not justified. This problem is illustrated with respect to two common scenarios in psychological research that raise questions for the sorts of theories that are typically proposed to explain human behavior and cognition. The paper presents a method of data analysis that requires closer attention to the range of behaviors exhibited by individuals in our research to determine the pervasiveness of effects observed in sample data. Such an approach to data analysis will produce results that are more in tune with the types of generalizations typical in reports of psychological research than mainstream analysis methods.

An Evaluation of the Presence of Spin in the Abstracts of Tonsillectomy Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Spin-the practice of adding or omitting information intentionally or unintentionally to make the results of a study more favorable-may influence clinical decision making, especially when present in study abstracts. Here, we quantify and characterize the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews regarding tonsillectomy.

METHODS

This study is an analysis of systematic review abstracts. Searches were conducted on September 23, 2019 on PubMed and Embase using the advanced search feature to retrieve systematic reviews regarding tonsillectomies. The nine most severe forms of spin were then evaluated. Spin was classified by two investigators in parallel, with each blinded to the classifications of the other. Study characteristics were also recorded in duplicate. Consensus meetings between investigators were held to resolve disagreements.

RESULTS

In the 85 included systematic reviews, at least one form of spin was present in 44.7% (38/85) of abstracts. Journals with higher impact factors were less likely to contain spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews (point biserial correlation coefficient of -0.30). No statistically significant associations were found between the presence of spin and intervention type (P = .56) or adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (P = .08); however, there was a significant association between spin and funding source (P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Spin was common in the abstracts of our sample of tonsillectomy systematic reviews. Researchers, clinicians, and peer reviewers could benefit from learning to recognize spin in medical literature. Further research is needed into the effects of spin on clinical decision making.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 2020.

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin

AIMS

To assess the reporting quality of recently published randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts in Endodontics, to investigate factors associated with reporting quality, and to evaluate the existence and characteristics of spin. Spin refers to reporting strategies that distort study results and misguide readers.

METHODOLOGY

The PubMed database was searched to identify abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics published during 2017 to 2018. Two authors assessed the reporting quality of each included abstract using the original 16-item CONSORT for Abstracts checklist, with the overall quality score (OQS, range: 0 to 16) being the primary outcome measure. For each individual item, a score of '1' was given if it was described adequately, and '0' if the description was inadequate. Linear regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with reporting quality. For the evaluation of spin, two authors selected parallel-group RCTs with a nonsignificant primary outcome from the included abstracts, and evaluated independently the existence and characteristics of spin among these abstracts.

RESULTS

A total of 162 abstracts were included for assessment of reporting, for which the mean OQS was 3.97 (SD, 1.30; 95 % CI, 3.77 to 4.17). According to multivariable analysis, origin from Europe (P=0.001) and reporting of the exact P value (P=0.020) were significantly associated with better reporting. Forty abstracts with statistically nonsignificant results for their primary outcome were included for spin evaluation, among which 34 (85.0%) had at least one type of spin. Thirty-two abstracts (94.1%) had spin in their conclusions section, and six abstracts (17.6%) had spin in the results section.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of RCT abstracts in Endodontics needs to be improved. The occurrence rate of spin in the sample of abstracts of RCTs in the field of Endodontics was high. Relevant stakeholders are recommended to be familiar with the CONSORT for Abstracts guideline and develop active strategies to ensure its implementation.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Background

Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris.

Objective

The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin.

Methods

Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin.

Results

Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor.

Conclusions

Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.