Abstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study

Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review

Spin, defined as the misrepresentation of the results of a study, could negate the validity of scientific findings. To explore the manifestation of spin, and identify the factors affecting spin in COVID-19 RCTs, a systematic review was performed from PubMed/Medline, National Institutes of Health, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. RCTs on pharmacotherapy for COVID-19 with nonsignificant primary outcomes published in 2020 were included. 21 abstracts (33.9%) and 28 main texts (45.2%) were found to contain spin in at least one section. In the conclusion section, other spin strategies beautifying their findings that were not included in the abstract were found in the main texts. More factors influencing the level of spin were found in abstracts than in the main texts, but most of the levels of spin in abstracts were comparable to those in the main texts. Although common factors that affected the manifestation of spin in the main texts and abstracts were the sample size and type of journal, further research to determine multicollinearity between significant factors and the manifestation of spin is required.

A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the abstract. When, as it has been shown, many authors overstate efficacy or understate harm in their abstracts, not consulting the underlying article could be misleading. This means that the prudent reader must have the ability to identify the 'tender points' of SRs to avoid falling for 'spin'. To this end we briefly review the method of SRs and ways to relatively quickly determine trustworthiness.

Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study

The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of RCTs in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015 until October 28, 2022 were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a pre-determined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national level was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95%CI: 2% to 6%) and 79% (95%CI: 74% to 84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR=2.131; 95%CI: 1.092 to 4.158; P=0.03), trial designs (non-parallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR=0.395; 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.810; P=0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR=0.998; 95%CI: 0.996 to 0.999; P<0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.

Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this research note is to share a technique for the identification of spin bias that we developed as part of a living systematic review on the cardiovascular testing of e-cigarette substitution for cigarette smoking. While some researchers have remarked on the subjective nature of ascertaining spin bias, our technique objectively documents forms of spin bias arising from the misrepresentation of nonsignificant findings and from the omission of data.

RESULTS

We offer a two-step process for the identification of spin bias consisting of tracking data and findings and recording of data discrepancies by describing how the spin bias was produced in the text. In this research note, we give an example of the documentation of spin bias from our systematic review. Our experience was that nonsignificant results were presented as causal or even as significant in the Discussion of studies. Spin bias distorts scientific research and misleads readers; therefore it behooves peer reviewers and journal editors to make the effort to detect and correct it.

Thirty-year survey of bibliometrics used in the research literature of pain: Analysis, evolution, and pitfalls

During the last decades, the emergence of Bibliometrics and the progress in Pain research have led to a proliferation of bibliometric studies on the medical and scientific literature of pain (B/P). This study charts the evolution of the B/P literature published during the last 30 years. Using various searching techniques, 189 B/P studies published from 1993 to August 2022 were collected for analysis-half were published since 2018. Most of the selected B/P publications use classic bibliometric analysis of Pain in toto, while some focus on specific types of Pain with Headache/Migraine, Low Back Pain, Chronic Pain, and Cancer Pain dominating. Each study is characterized by the origin (geographical, economical, institutional, …) and the medical/scientific context over a specified time span to provide a detailed landscape of the Pain research literature. Some B/P studies have been developed to pinpoint difficulties in appropriately identifying the Pain literature or to highlight some general publishing pitfalls. Having observed that most of the recent B/P studies have integrated newly emergent software visualization tools (SVTs), we found an increase of anomalies and suggest that readers exercise caution when interpreting results in the B/P literature details.

Analysis of Spin in the Reporting of Studies on Electroanalgesia for Musculoskeletal Pain

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality of reporting and presence of spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of electroanalgesia for musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched from 2010 to June 2021. Inclusion criteria were RCTs using electroanalgesia in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, written in any language, comparing 2 or more groups, and with pain as 1 of the outcomes. Two blinded, independent, and calibrated evaluators (Gwet's AC1 agreement analysis) performed eligibility and data extraction. General characteristics, report of outcomes, quality of reporting (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts [CONSORT-A]), and spin analysis (7-item spin checklist and spin analysis per section) were extracted from abstracts.

RESULTS

Of 989 studies selected, 173 abstracts were analyzed after screening and eligibility criteria. Mean risk of bias on the PEDro scale was 6.02 ± 1.6 points. Most abstracts did not report significant differences for primary (51.4%) and secondary (63%) outcomes. Mean quality of reporting was 5.10 ± 2.4 points in the CONSORT-A, and spin was 2.97 ± 1.7. Abstracts had at least 1 type of spin (93%), and the conclusion presented the greatest number of spin types. More than 50% of abstracts recommended an intervention without significant differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

This study found that the majority of RCT abstracts on electroanalgesia for musculoskeletal conditions in our sample had a moderate to high risk of bias, incomplete or missing information, and some type of spin. We recommend that health care providers who use electroanalgesia and the scientific community be aware of spin in published studies.

Spin of information and inconsistency between abstract and full text in RCTs investigating upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: An overview study

BACKGROUND

Researchers may be tempted to favorably distort the interpretation of their findings when reporting the abstract (i.e., spin). Spin bias overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention compared with the results shown in the full text.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the occurrence of spin bias and incompleteness in reporting abstracts in post-stroke upper limb (UL) rehabilitation randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A sample of 120 post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs (indexed in PEDro database), published in English between 2012 and 2020, was included. The completeness of reporting and spin were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) and the spin checklist. The relationship between CONSORT-A and spin checklist scores with RCT and journal characteristics was assessed.

RESULTS

CONSORT-A and spin checklist scored 5.3±2.4 (max 15-points, higher scores indicating better reporting) and 5.5±2.0 (max 7-points, higher scores indicating presence of spin), respectively; Significant differences were detected between abstract and full-text scores in the CONSORT-A checklist (p < 0.01) and the spin checklist (p < 0.01). Items of the CONSORT-A checklist in the abstracts and full text showed a fair agreement (k = 0.31), while a moderate agreement (k = 0.59) for the spin checklist was detected. Completeness of abstract was associated (R2 = 0.46) with journal Impact Factor (p < 0.01), CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.04), and abstract word number (p = 0.02). A lower spin was associated with a higher journal Impact Factor (p = 0.01) and CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs abstracts were largely incomplete showing spin. Authors, reviewers, publishers, and stakeholders should be aware of this phenomenon. Publishers should consider allowing more words in abstracts to improve the completeness of reporting abstracts. Although we have investigated only stroke rehabilitation, our results suggest that health care professionals of all disciplines should avoid clinical decision-making based solely upon abstracts.

The cognitive-behavioral aspects of the Mulligan concept of manual therapy: A systematic review

Low back pain (LBP) is a common clinical problem imposing a prominent socio-economic burden. The purpose of this systematic review was to investigate the biopsychosocial effects of the Mulligan Concept (MC) of manual therapy (MT) when applied to patient's with LBP. Three researchers independently evaluated the literature quality, and completed a review on five online databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, ProQuest and Google Scholar) for articles published from January 1st 2010 to November 20th 2021, using a combination of free words, Wildcards and Medical Subject Headings (MESH) terms: " Mulligan mobilization " AND " back pain " OR " SNAGs." In total, 62 studies were selected for full-text reading, from which finally 6 studies were included in the present review. The results revealed that the studies where the MC of MT was applied to treat LBP mainly lacked concern regarding the effect that the intervention has on the cognitive and behavioural parameters. The ones that introduced measure outcomes for at least some parts of the cognitive behavioural components, showed that the MC has a positive effect, even though without a long-term follow-up assessment. This review summarized that the evidence of the MC on cognitive behavioural (CB) aspects of patients with LBP is controversial and scarce.

Effect of spin in the abstract of a randomised controlled trial on physiotherapists' perception of treatment benefit: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of spin in the abstract of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) on physiotherapists' perception of treatment benefit evaluated in the trial.

DESIGN

Parallel-group RCT.

SETTING

Physiotherapy departments in hospitals and clinics in India.

PARTICIPANTS

Physiotherapists working in clinical settings.

INTERVENTIONS

We selected one abstract with high level of spin published in one of the core journals of physiotherapy and created two versions of the abstract, that is, with and without spin. We randomly assigned physiotherapists working in clinical settings (N=128) to read one version of the selected abstract, with or without spin. Participants were blinded to the study design, objectives and randomisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Physiotherapists' interpretation of beneficial effect of the experimental treatment (0-10 scale) reported in the abstract. The secondary outcomes were clinicians' perception of methodological rigour and the study importance, their interest in reading the full text, and their interest in running another trial evaluating this treatment.

RESULTS

We found a medium reduction in confidence of beneficial effect of the experimental treatment among physiotherapists who read the abstract without spin (mean score 4.3±2.8) compared with those who read the abstract with spin (mean score 6.14±2.6). The mean difference in scores between abstracts with and without spin was 1.8 (95% CI 0.8 to 2.8; p<0.001). For other outcomes measures studied there was no statistically significant effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Removal of spin in the abstract of RCT reporting statistically non-significant results have medium effect in improving physiotherapists' accuracy of interpretation of study results. Spin contributes to clinicians' positive perception about the benefit of experimental intervention tested in the trial despite the evidence showing no superiority of experimental intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CTRI/2020/02/023557.

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.

Do not make clinical decisions based on abstracts of healthcare research: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the reporting quality of healthcare abstracts and inconsistencies between abstracts and full texts.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This systematic review included overviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) that summarized data of healthcare abstracts on reporting of abstracts and consistency of abstracts with the full text. Searches were performed in PubMed, CENTRAL, Cochrane Library and EMBASE databases from 1900 to February 2019. Two authors screened the overviews and extracted the data. All analyses were descriptive and divided into two main groups: abstracts' reporting quality and abstracts' consistency with the full text. Abstracts were considered poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text if more than 5% of abstracts' information was not fully reported or not consistent with the full text.

RESULTS

27 overviews analyzing 5,194 RCTs and 866 SRs were retrieved for reporting quality of abstracts. A total of 22 overviews analyzing 2,025 RCTs and 551 SRs were included for consistency of abstracts with the full text. Abstracts across all healthcare areas presented poor reporting quality and were inconsistent with the full texts, with results and conclusions as the most inconsistent sections.

CONCLUSION

Abstracts of healthcare RCTs and SRs have shown a large room for improvement in reporting quality and consistency with the full text. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to give the highest priority to this matter.

Vaccination for Human Papillomavirus: an historic and bibliometric study

A systematic literature review was conducted to describe in a historical perspective the evolution of studies concerning HPV vaccination. The search identified 794 articles of which 568 were included. The first article was published in 2001, and the maximum annual number of publications was reached in 2014. The average number of authors per paper was 8.8. Papers originated from 49 different countries, with the USA accounted for the maximum number of publications (n = 217). Efficacy (46.5%) and safety (31.0%) were the most prevalent objectives. Clinical trials constituted the largest group of methods (37.9%). Chronological trends did not reveal any lasting curve-crossings, indicating that the priority topics have remained the same. The geographical origin of these studies raises questions about the transposability of the results to populations where HPV vaccination has been studied only a little. This study could help guide future research to less-studied research objectives, particularly for vaccines.

Evidence for Citation Networks in Studies of Free-Roaming Cats: A Case Study Using Literature on Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR)

Simple Summary

All aspects of an argument need to be evaluated in evidence-based scientific pursuit to prevent the development of self-reinforcing cohorts of studies through the cross-referencing of selected subsets of studies (citation bias). Controling populations of unowned cats using Trap–Neuter–Return and its variants (hereafter TNR) is an example of how a scientific topic develops and is communicated academically and publicly. We found 145 TNR publications between 2002–2019, with the last two years seeing a rapid increase in studies. Publication clusters occur, focusing on: population control, interactions with wildlife, disease transmission (including implications for pet cats, wildlife and humans), free-roaming cats, and feral and domestic cat management. A quarter of all studies were published in Open Access formats, which have the highest potential social impact because they are free to download, share and read. While it is encouraging that diverse views are expressed, the development of clusters of introspective topics risks reduced dialogue between groups of authors with differing views. Journal editors could encourage exchanges between groups by choosing reviewers from different camps to assess manuscripts and by asking authors to acknowledge alternative views.

Abstract

Trap–Neuter–Return and its variants (hereafter TNR) aims to control unowned cat populations. Papers on this topic form a useful case study of how how an area of literature grows, papers become influential, and citation networks form, influencing future study as well as public perceptions of the science. We analysed 145 TNR studies published 2002–2019. Common topics, identified by frequently used language, were population control, interactions with wildlife, disease transmission (including implications for pets, wildlife and humans), free-roaming cats, and feral and domestic cat management. One or more papers on each of these topics was judged influential because of high citations overall, high average citations/year, or frequent mentions in social media. Open Access papers were more influential in social media, raising greater public awareness than studies published in journals that were less accessible. While divergent views exist on a range of topics, the network analysis of the TNR literature indicated potential for forming self-reinforcing groups of authors. While it is encouraging that diverse views are expressed, there is a risk of reduced dialogue interactions between groups, potentially constraining dialogue to refine arguments, share information, or plan research. Journal editors could encourage communication by choosing reviewers from different camps to assess manuscripts and by asking authors to acknowledge alternative views.

Eight in Every 10 Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews

STUDY DESIGN

Overview study.

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of systematic reviews have presented 'spin' (i.e. overstated interpretation of study results) and inconsistency with the full text.

OBJECTIVES

1. Do abstracts of low back pain reviews contain spin? 2. Do these abstracts consistently represent the full text? 3. Is abstract spin associated with the type of conclusion?

METHODS

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) on 10th January 2018. Data were extracted from systematic reviews of physiotherapy interventions for low back pain, published between 2015 and 2017. Spin was assessed using a 7-item checklist. We evaluated consistency by comparing information contained in the abstract and the full text using the 7-item checklist with Kappa coefficient analysis. We used logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between spin in the abstract and type of conclusion. We evaluated methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews).

RESULTS

We included 66 eligible systematic reviews, subdivided into Cochrane (n=9) and non-Cochrane (n=57) reviews. There was some form of spin in 80% of abstracts. Abstracts of non-Cochrane reviews were not consistent with the full text (fair to moderate agreement). Cochrane review abstracts had substantial to almost perfect agreement with the full text. Spin was not associated with the type of conclusion in all systematic reviews (P < 0.05). The methodological quality ranged from 'high' to 'critically low'.

CONCLUSIONS

The abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating physiotherapy interventions for low back pain need improvement. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8962.