A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers

SPIN-PM: a consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models

OBJECTIVES

To develop a framework to identify and evaluate spin practices and its facilitators in studies on clinical prediction model regardless of the modeling technique.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We followed a three-phase consensus process: (1) premeeting literature review to generate items to be included; (2) a series of structured meetings to provide comments discussed and exchanged viewpoints on items to be included with a panel of experienced researchers; and (3) postmeeting review on final list of items and examples to be included. Through this iterative consensus process, a framework was derived after all panel's researchers agreed.

RESULTS

This consensus process involved a panel of eight researchers and resulted in SPIN-Prediction Models which consists of two categories of spin (misleading interpretation and misleading transportability), and within these categories, two forms of spin (spin practices and facilitators of spin). We provide criteria and examples.

CONCLUSION

We proposed this guidance aiming to facilitate not only the accurate reporting but also an accurate interpretation and extrapolation of clinical prediction models which will likely improve the reporting quality of subsequent research, as well as reduce research waste.

Prognostic Biomarkers in Kidney Transplantation: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND

Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon.

METHODS

We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators.

RESULTS

A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8-35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3-59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96-629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0-6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Systematic review finds "spin" practices and poor reporting standards in studies on machine learning-based prediction models

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the presence and frequency of spin practices and poor reporting standards in studies that developed and/or validated clinical prediction models using supervised machine learning techniques.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We systematically searched PubMed from 01/2018 to 12/2019 to identify diagnostic and prognostic prediction model studies using supervised machine learning. No restrictions were placed on data source, outcome, or clinical specialty.

RESULTS

We included 152 studies: 38% reported diagnostic models and 62% prognostic models. When reported, discrimination was described without precision estimates in 53/71 abstracts (74.6% [95% CI 63.4-83.3]) and 53/81 main texts (65.4% [95% CI 54.6-74.9]). Of the 21 abstracts that recommended the model to be used in daily practice, 20 (95.2% [95% CI 77.3-99.8]) lacked any external validation of the developed models. Likewise, 74/133 (55.6% [95% CI 47.2-63.8]) studies made recommendations for clinical use in their main text without any external validation. Reporting guidelines were cited in 13/152 (8.6% [95% CI 5.1-14.1]) studies.

CONCLUSION

Spin practices and poor reporting standards are also present in studies on prediction models using machine learning techniques. A tailored framework for the identification of spin will enhance the sound reporting of prediction model studies.

Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

In biomedical research, spin is the overinterpretation of findings, and it is a growing concern. To date, the presence of spin has not been evaluated in prognostic model research in oncology, including studies developing and validating models for individualized risk prediction.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE and EMBASE for oncology-related studies that developed and validated a prognostic model using machine learning published between 1st January, 2019, and 5th September, 2019. We used existing spin frameworks and described areas of highly suggestive spin practices.

RESULTS

We included 62 publications (including 152 developed models; 37 validated models). Reporting was inconsistent between methods and the results in 27% of studies due to additional analysis and selective reporting. Thirty-two studies (out of 36 applicable studies) reported comparisons between developed models in their discussion and predominantly used discrimination measures to support their claims (78%). Thirty-five studies (56%) used an overly strong or leading word in their title, abstract, results, discussion, or conclusion.

CONCLUSION

The potential for spin needs to be considered when reading, interpreting, and using studies that developed and validated prognostic models in oncology. Researchers should carefully report their prognostic model research using words that reflect their actual results and strength of evidence.

Influence of the statistical significance of results and spin on readers' interpretation of the results in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial: a randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact on readers' interpretation of the results reported in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial with (1) a statistically significant result (SSR), (2) spin, (3) both an SSR and spin compared with (4) no spin and no SSR.

PARTICIPANTS

Health students and professionals from universities and health institutions in France and the UK.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants completed an online questionnaire using Likert scales and free text, after reading one of the four versions of an abstract about a hypothetical randomised trial evaluating 'Naranex' and 'Bulofil' (two hypothetical drugs) for chronic low back pain. The abstracts differed in (1) reported result of 'mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI 0.08 to 2.54, p= 0.04)' or 'mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI -0.08 to 2.70, p= 0.06)' and (2) presence or absence of spin. The effect size for the trial's primary outcome (pain disability score) was the same in each abstract, slightly in favour of Naranex.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

The reader's interpretation of the trial's results, based on their answer (1, disagree; 4, neutral; 7, agree) to the following statement: 'About the main findings of the study, what is your opinion about the following statement: 'Naranex is better than Bulofil'?'

RESULTS

Two hundred and ninety-seven of the 404 people randomised to receive one of the four abstracts completed the study. Respondents were more likely to favour Narenex when the abstract reported an SSR without spin, a statistically significant result with spin, a non-statistically significant result with spin, compared with when it reported a non-SSR without spin.

CONCLUSION

Statistical significance appears to have influenced readers' perception whatever the level of spin, while spin influenced readers' perception when the results were not statistically significant but did not appear to have an impact when results were statistically significant.

Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Spin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Standardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.

RESULTS

The analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

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.

High frequency of spin bias in controlled trials of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogues: A meta-epidemiologic study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the frequency and perform a qualitative analysis of spin bias in publications of controlled trials assessing the therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogues.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Meta-epidemiologic study carried out at the Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil.

RESULTS

A total of 65 publications with at least one efficacy primary outcome were considered. The results analysis for the primary outcome indicated statistically significant effects in 44.6% (29/65) of the publications, and 70.7% (45/65) of the conclusions were considered favorable to the intervention. Among the 36 publications that found statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcome, 44.4% (16/36) presented conclusions favorable to or recommending the intervention, which represents spin bias according to the definition adopted in this study. Qualitative analysis of the 16 studies with spin bias showed selective outcomes reporting (elevating secondary outcomes that had positive results or reporting only subgroup results), deviations from the planned statistical analysis, and failure to consider or report uncertainty in the estimates of treatment effects.

CONCLUSION

The frequency of spin bias among publications of controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results assessing the therapeutic use of cannabis derivatives and their synthetic analogues reached 44.4%. When not observed by readers, such deviation can lead to misconduct in clinical practice through the adoption of interventions that are not effective or whose effectiveness is uncertain.

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

OBJECTIVE

Spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of research findings, has the potential to affect patient care. Evidence suggests that spin is prevalent in obesity randomized controlled trials. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate spin in abstracts of systematic reviews covering obesity treatments.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Embase were searched to retrieve systematic reviews on obesity treatments. Each systematic review abstract was inspected for the nine most severe types of spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of study findings by exaggeration or omission, regardless of intentionality. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, triplicate fashion. Methodological quality was determined using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).

RESULTS

Spin was identified in 20 (out of 200, 10%) abstracts, with spin type 5 (claiming efficacy despite high risk of bias among primary studies) being most common (11/200, 5.5%). Spin types 2 and 7, both related to unsupported efficacy claims, were not found. No associations were found between spin and extracted study characteristics. The methodological quality of the sample was rated as follows: critically low (23.0%), low (13.5%), moderate (60.5%), and high (3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although these findings demonstrate a low proportion of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews for obesity treatment; increased preventive measures may further reduce its presence.

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.

Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results

Background: Spin refers to reporting practices that could distort the interpretation and mislead readers by being more optimistic than the results justify, thereby possibly changing the perception of clinicians and influence their decisions. Because of the clinical importance of accurate interpretation of results and the evidence of spin in other research fields, we aim to identify the nature and frequency of spin in published reports of tinnitus randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess possible determinants and effects of spin. Methods: We searched PubMed systematically for RCTs with tinnitus-related outcomes published from 2015 to 2019. All eligible articles were assessed on actual and potential spin using prespecified criteria. Results: Our search identified 628 studies, of which 87 were eligible for evaluation. A total of 95% of the studies contained actual or potential spin. Actual spin was found mostly in the conclusion of articles, which reflected something else than the reported point estimate (or CI) of the outcome (n = 34, 39%) or which was selectively focused (n = 49, 56%). Linguistic spin ("trend," "marginally significant," or "tendency toward an effect") was found in 17% of the studies. We were not able to assess the association between study characteristics and the occurrence of spin due to the low number of trials for some categories of the study characteristics. We found no effect of spin on type of journal [odds ratio (OR) -0.13, 95% CI -0.56-0.31], journal impact factor (OR 0.17, 95% CI -0.18-0.51), or number of citations (OR 1.95, CI -2.74-6.65). Conclusion: There is a large amount of spin in tinnitus RCTs. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in reporting and interpretation of results. Awareness of different forms of spin must be raised to improve research quality and reduce research waste.

Consistency of causal claims in observational studies: a review of papers published in a general medical journal

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the consistency of causal statements in observational studies published in The BMJ.

DESIGN

Review of observational studies published in a general medical journal.

DATA SOURCE

Cohort and other longitudinal studies describing an exposure-outcome relationship published in The BMJ in 2018. We also had access to the submitted papers and reviewer reports.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of published research papers with 'inconsistent' use of causal language. Papers where language was consistently causal or non-causal were classified as 'consistently causal' or 'consistently not causal', respectively. For the 'inconsistent' papers, we then compared the published and submitted version.

RESULTS

Of 151 published research papers, 60 described eligible studies. Of these 60, we classified the causal language used as 'consistently causal' (48%), 'inconsistent' (20%) and 'consistently not causal'(32%). Eleven out of 12 (92%) of the 'inconsistent' papers were already inconsistent on submission. The inconsistencies found in both submitted and published versions were mainly due to mismatches between objectives and conclusions. One section might be carefully phrased in terms of association while the other presented causal language. When identifying only an association, some authors jumped to recommending acting on the findings as if motivated by the evidence presented.

CONCLUSION

Further guidance is necessary for authors on what constitutes a causal statement and how to justify or discuss assumptions involved. Based on screening these papers, we provide a list of expressions beyond the obvious 'cause' word which may inspire a useful more comprehensive compendium on causal language.

A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract's conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the effect of an intervention compared to the usual peer-review process on reducing spin in the abstract's conclusion of biomedical study reports.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group RCT in a sample of primary research manuscripts submitted to BMJ Open. The authors received short instructions alongside the peer reviewers' comments in the intervention group. We assessed the presence of spin (primary outcome), types of spin, and wording change in the revised abstract's conclusion. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment.

RESULTS

Of the 184 manuscripts randomized, 108 (54 intervention, 54 control) were selected for revision and could be evaluated for the presence of spin. The proportion of manuscripts with spin was 6% lower (95% CI: 24% lower to 13% higher) in the intervention group (57%, 31/54) than in the control group (63%, 34/54). The wording of the revised abstract's conclusion was changed in 34/54 (63%) manuscripts in the intervention group and 26/54 (48%) in the control group. The four prespecified types of spin involved (i) selective reporting (12 in the intervention group vs. 8 in the control group), (ii) including information not supported by evidence (9 vs. 9), and (iii) interpretation not consistent with the study results (14 vs. 18), and (iv) unjustified recommendations for practice (5 vs. 11).

CONCLUSION

These short instructions to authors did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing spin in revised abstract conclusions, and based on the confidence interval, the existence of a large effect can be excluded. Other interventions to reduce spin in reports of original research should be evaluated.

STUDY REGISTRATION

osf.io/xnuyt.

Evaluation of misrepresented findings in the abstracts of acute respiratory distress syndrome randomized trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints

OBJECTIVE

We investigated the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to assess the presentation and frequency of misrepresented research findings, also known as spin.

METHODS

We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for studies published from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials with an ARDS intervention and a nonsignificant primary endpoint. Trial screening and data extraction was performed on all studies independently and in duplicate. The primary endpoint was to investigate the frequency and manifestation of spin in RCT abstracts. Our secondary endpoint was to investigate associations between funding source and spin.

RESULTS

Our PubMed search returned 766 articles with 37 meeting inclusion criteria. Spin was present in 14 (14/37, 37.8%; 95% CI 22.5%-55.2%) abstracts. The most common manifestations of spin were claiming benefit based on a significant secondary endpoint (6/14, 42.9%), followed by the use of 'trend' statements, such as 'trend toward significance' (2/14, 14.3%; 95% CI 1.8%-42.8%). The most common spin in abstract conclusions was in the form of claiming benefit due to a significant secondary endpoint (3/4, 75%; 95% CI 19.4%-99.4%). Our secondary endpoint did not identify a significant difference in the prevalence of spin in publicly funded (5/19, 26.3%; 95% CI 9.1%-51.2%) compared to privately funded (4/12, 33.3%; 95% CI 9.9%-65.1%) studies (p>.05).

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs of ARDS interventions with nonsignificant primary endpoints often included spin in the abstract. Spin in the abstract may influence clinician appraisal and interpretation of diagnostic or treatment modalities.

Current Resources for Evidence-Based Practice, September 2020

An extensive review of new resources to support the provision of evidence-based care for women and infants. The current column includes a discussion of “spin” in scientific reporting and its effect on summaries and syntheses of the literature and commentaries on reviews about early versus late amniotomy as part of labor induction protocols and the economic burden associated with maternal morbidity.