The SSSPIN study-spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis

Narrative bias ("spin") is common in randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids for pain

ABSTRACT

We define narrative bias as a tendency to interpret information as part of a larger story or pattern, regardless of whether the facts support the full narrative. Narrative bias in title and abstract means that results reported in the title and abstract of an article are done so in a way that could distort their interpretation and mislead readers who had not read the whole article. Narrative bias is often referred to as "spin." It is prevalent in abstracts of scientific papers and is impactful because abstracts are often the only part of an article read. We found no extant narrative bias instrument suitable for exploring both efficacy and safety statements in randomized trials and systematic reviews of pain. We constructed a 6-point instrument with clear instructions and tested it on randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids and cannabis-based medicines for pain, with updated searches to April 2021. The instrument detected moderate or severe narrative bias in the title and abstract of 24% (8 of 34) of randomised controlled trials and 17% (11 of 64) of systematic reviews; narrative bias for efficacy and safety occurred equally. There was no significant or meaningful association between narrative bias and study characteristics in correlation or cluster analyses. Bias was always in favour of the experimental cannabinoid or cannabis-based medicine. Put simply, reading title and abstract only could give an incorrect impression of efficacy or safety in about 1 in 5 papers reporting on these products.

Spin and fragility in randomised controlled trials in the anaesthesia literature: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Given variable frequency of misleading reports and the potential for spin (a way of describing results that can mislead readers) to influence interpretation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we have undertaken a spin reassessment. We evaluated the quality of recent literature in anaesthesia journals by assessing the presence of spin and calculating the fragility index.

METHODS

This systematic review of randomised trials was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched via PubMed® from January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2021 to identify all RCTs published in one of the 20 anaesthesia journals with the highest journal impact factors during this time. Four pairs of reviewers assessed articles independently for eligibility using a piloted electronic data extraction form. They assessed the presence of spin in statistically negative RCTs and calculated the fragility index for statistically positive RCTs.

RESULTS

Of the 802 screened records, 162 (20%) articles were analysed for spin, and 65 (8%) trials were analysed for fragility index. For the statistically negative studies, 66 articles (40%) presented spin; 89% of these occurrences of spin were described in the conclusion of the abstract. The primary type of spin was the highlight of secondary outcomes (67%). For statistically positive trials, the median fragility index was 4 [1-8].

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review showed that 40% of statistically negative trials in high-impact anaesthesia journals could mislead readers. For statistically positive RCTs, the results relied on few subjects, with a median fragility index of 4 [1-8]. Efforts must be continued to reduce spin and fragility in the medical literature.

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinical trials. Little is known about spin in systematic reviews.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to antiplatelet therapies following acute coronary syndrome on 2 June 2020. Data were extracted evaluating the presence of spin and study characteristics, including methodological quality as rated by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). All data extraction was conducted in a masked, duplicate manner from 2 June 2020 to 26 June 2020.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Not applicable.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed abstracts of systematic reviews on antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and evaluated the prevalence of the nine most severe types of spin. We additionally explored associations between spin and certain study characteristics, including quality.

RESULTS

Our searches returned 15 263 articles, and 185 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Of these 185 reviews, 31.9% (59/185) contained some form of spin in the abstract. Seven forms of spin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9) among the nine most severe were identified. No instances of types 6 or 8 were found. There were no statistically significant relationships between spin and the evaluated study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 appraisals.

CONCLUSIONS

Spin was present in abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; subsequent studies are needed to identify correlations between spin and specific study characteristics. There were no statistically significant associations between spin and study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings; however, implementing changes will ensure that spin is reduced in the field of cardiology as well as other fields of medicine.

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.

Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance

The power of language to modify the reader's perception of interpreting biomedical results cannot be underestimated. Misreporting and misinterpretation are pressing problems in randomized controlled trials (RCT) output. This may be partially related to the statistical significance paradigm used in clinical trials centered around a P value below 0.05 cutoff. Strict use of this P value may lead to strategies of clinical researchers to describe their clinical results with P values approaching but not reaching the threshold to be "almost significant." The question is how phrases expressing nonsignificant results have been reported in RCTs over the past 30 years. To this end, we conducted a quantitative analysis of English full texts containing 567,758 RCTs recorded in PubMed between 1990 and 2020 (81.5% of all published RCTs in PubMed). We determined the exact presence of 505 predefined phrases denoting results that approach but do not cross the line of formal statistical significance (P < 0.05). We modeled temporal trends in phrase data with Bayesian linear regression. Evidence for temporal change was obtained through Bayes factor (BF) analysis. In a randomly sampled subset, the associated P values were manually extracted. We identified 61,741 phrases in 49,134 RCTs indicating almost significant results (8.65%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 8.58% to 8.73%). The overall prevalence of these phrases remained stable over time, with the most prevalent phrases being "marginally significant" (in 7,735 RCTs), "all but significant" (7,015), "a nonsignificant trend" (3,442), "failed to reach statistical significance" (2,578), and "a strong trend" (1,700). The strongest evidence for an increased temporal prevalence was found for "a numerical trend," "a positive trend," "an increasing trend," and "nominally significant." In contrast, the phrases "all but significant," "approaches statistical significance," "did not quite reach statistical significance," "difference was apparent," "failed to reach statistical significance," and "not quite significant" decreased over time. In a random sampled subset of 29,000 phrases, the manually identified and corresponding 11,926 P values, 68,1% ranged between 0.05 and 0.15 (CI: 67. to 69.0; median 0.06). Our results show that RCT reports regularly contain specific phrases describing marginally nonsignificant results to report P values close to but above the dominant 0.05 cutoff. The fact that the prevalence of the phrases remained stable over time indicates that this practice of broadly interpreting P values close to a predefined threshold remains prevalent. To enhance responsible and transparent interpretation of RCT results, researchers, clinicians, reviewers, and editors may reduce the focus on formal statistical significance thresholds and stimulate reporting of P values with corresponding effect sizes and CIs and focus on the clinical relevance of the statistical difference found in RCTs.

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.

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.

Meta-research publications in dentistry: a review

The present scoping review has the objective of providing an overview of meta-research in dentistry. A search of the PubMed database was performed for the period 11 October 2014 to 10 October 2019. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by one author; prior to this, a random sample of 10% of the retrieved titles and abstracts were independently screened by two authors, achieving agreement of >80% on eligibility for initial inclusion, corresponding to good agreement. The following information was extracted from the full text of each article: meta-research area of interest; study design; type of studies evaluated in the meta-research; type of methodology used in assessment of the primary research; conflicts of interest reported; sponsorships reported; dental discipline; journal of publication; country of the first author; number of citations; and impact factor. A total of 7800 documents were initially retrieved. After analysis of the title/abstract and the full text of each article, and a snowballing procedure, 155 meta-research studies were identified and included. The 'methods' and 'reporting' meta-research areas were the most prevalent, with 73 (47%) and 61 (40%) studies, respectively. General dentistry, and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopaedics were the dental specialties with the greatest number/proportion of included studies with 45 (29%) and 28 (18%) studies, respectively. These findings may help to prioritize future meta-research in dentistry, consequently avoiding unnessecary investigations, and increasing the value of oral and dental research.

Seven recommendations to rescue the patients and reduce the mortality from COVID-19 infection: An immunological point of view

Now COVID-19 is causing a severe public health emergency and the mortality is rapidly increasing all over the world. In the current pandemic era, although there have been many efforts to diagnose a number of patients with symptoms or close contacts, there is no definite guideline for the initial therapeutic approach for them and therefore, many patients have been dying due to a hyperinflammatory immunological reaction labeled as “cytokine storm”. Severe patients are hospitalized and the treatment is done, though they have not been established yet. Currently, however, no treatment is provided for those who are isolated at home or shelter until they get severe symptoms, which will increase the harms to the patients. In this review, we discuss some important points dedicated to the management of patients with COVID-19, which should help reducing morbidity and mortality. In this era, we suggest 7 recommendations to rescue the patients and to reduce the morbidity and mortality due to COVID-19 based on the immunological point of view.