<b><i>Background:</i></b> Spin – the misrepresentation of a study’s results – has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine. <b><i>Objectives:</i></b> This study’s primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Spin types 1, 2, and 9 were not identified. All industry-funded systematic reviews contained spin in their abstract. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Severe forms of spin were found in the majority of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.

Background Person-centered language places a person’s identity before any disability or medical condition they may have. Using person-centered language reduces stigma and improves the patient-physician relationship, potentially optimizing health outcomes. Patients with psoriasis often feel stigmatized due to their chronic skin condition. Objective We seek to evaluate the use of person-centered language in psoriasis literature and to explore whether certain article characteristics were associated with non–person-centered language. Methods We performed a systematic search on PubMed for recently published articles in journals that regularly publish psoriasis studies. After article reduction procedures, randomization, and screening, we reached our target sample of 400 articles. The following non–person-centered language terms were extracted from each article: “Psoriasis Patient,” “Psoriasis subject,” “Affected with,” “Sufferer,” “Suffering from,” “Burdened with,” “Afflicted with,” and “Problems with.” Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked duplicate fashion. Results Of the 400 included articles, 272 (68%) were not adherent to person-centered language guidelines according to the American Medical Association Manual of Style. The most frequent non–person-centered language term was “Psoriasis Patient,” found in 174 (43.5%) articles. The stigmatizing language was associated with the type of article and funding status, with original investigations and funded studies having higher rates of stigmatizing language. Conclusions Articles about psoriasis commonly use non–person-centered language terms. It is important to shift away from using stigmatizing language about patients with psoriasis to avoid potential untoward influences. We recommend using “patients with psoriasis” or “patient living with psoriasis” to emphasize the importance of person-centered care.

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.

Objectives Cesarean delivery (CD) is a common obstetrical procedure aimed at reducing maternal and infant morbidity and mortality in complicated pregnancies and medical emergencies yet carries potential complications. CD rates in the USA have increased over the years—likely associated with increased comorbidities. Thus, to expand the literature, our objective was to identify the likelihood of a woman having a CD when comorbidities—diabetes, high blood pressure (HBP), or depression—are present. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the 2019 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System. Binary and multivariable logistic regression were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) to determine associations between pre-existing and gestational comorbidities and CD among pregnant women. Results Compared to those without a diagnosis, women with pre-existing diabetes (AOR: 1.69; CI: 1.54–1.86), pre-existing HBP (AOR: 1.58; CI: 1.46–1.69), and pre-existing depression (AOR: 1.14; CI 1.08–1.20; Table 2) were more likely to have a CD. Additionally, participants with gestational diabetes (AOR 1.43; CI 1.34–1.52), HBP (AOR 1.86; CI 1.76–1.95) and depression (AOR 1.13; CI 1.07–1.19) were also more likely to have a CD than those without comorbidities. Conclusions Higher rates of CD were found among individuals with a pre-existing or gestational diagnosis of diabetes, HBP, or depression than those without these diagnoses. With increasing rates of these conditions, it is likely that CD rates will continue their trajectory in the USA. Thus, professional organizations can have more impact by popularizing and making effective evidence-based guidelines for management.

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.

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 non-dermatological 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 e 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 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA) 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% of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3, occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2, 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 than the reference group. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (AOR: 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source, 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 is improving.

No abstract

No abstract