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

'Spin' among abstracts of randomised controlled trials in sleep medicine: A research-on-research study

STUDY OBJECTIVES

'Spin', using reporting strategies to distort study results, can mislead readers of medical research. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of 'spin' among randomised controlled trial (RCT) abstracts published in sleep medicine journals, and to identify factors associated with its presence and severity.

METHODS

The search for RCTs published between 2010 and 2020 were conducted in seven reputable journals of sleep medicine. Abstracts of RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes were included and analysed for 'spin', according to pre-determined 'spin' strategies. Chi-square tests or logistic regression analyses were performed to detect the association between characteristics of included abstracts and the presence and severity of 'spin'.

RESULTS

A total of 114 RCT abstracts were included in this study, of which 89 (78.1%) were identified as having at least one type of 'spin' strategy. Sixty-six abstracts (57.9%) had 'spin' in the Results section, 82 (71.9%) abstracts presented with 'spin' in the Conclusions section. The presence of 'spin' varied significantly among RCTs based on the different categories of research area (P=0.047) and the statistician involvement (P=0.045). Furthermore, research area (P=0.019) and funding status (P=0.033) were significant factors associated with the severity of 'spin'.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of 'spin' is high among RCT abstracts in sleep medicine. This raise the need for researchers, editors and other stakeholders to be aware of the issue of 'spin' and make joint efforts to eliminate it in future publications.

How to peer review: practical advice for early career researchers

Practical tips and guidance on peer review are provided by three scientists in the respiratory field, to help early career researchers who may be invited to review papers for respiratory journals https://bit.ly/3EuWpoH.

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.

Reporting completeness in abstracts of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies in cardiovascular diseases is suboptimal

OBJECTIVE

Journal abstracts are crucial for the identification and initial assessment of content of studies. We evaluated whether authors in the field of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) reported Diagnostic Test Accuracy Systematic Reviews (DTA SRs) abstracts adequately, as defined by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-DTA guidelines.

METHODS

SRs of DTA studies in CVDs published in general and specialized medical journals were identified in a MEDLINE search between 2010-2020. Adherence to 12 PRISMA-DTA for abstracts items was assessed independently by two reviewers and compared by journal's type. Moreover, the association of reporting completeness with different characteristics was investigated.

RESULTS

We included 72 abstracts. Studies published in general medical journals had higher mean reporting score than those in specialized journals (6.2 vs 5.3 out of 12 items; mean difference: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 1.55). PRISMA-DTA adherence was higher in journals that adopted this guideline and in articles with structured abstracts. However, number of participants analysed, funding and registration were the least-reported items in the identified abstracts.

CONCLUSION

The reporting of abstracts of DTA reports in CVDs is suboptimal according to PRISMA-DTA guidelines. Abstract reporting could be improved with the use of higher word count limits and the adoption of PRISMA-DTA guidelines especially in specialized journals.