An Evaluation of the Presence of Spin in the Abstracts of Tonsillectomy Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Objectives/Hypothesis Spin—the practice of adding or omitting information intentionally or unintentionally to make the results of a study more favorable—may influence clinical decision making, especially when present in study abstracts. Here, we quantify and characterize the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews regarding tonsillectomy. Methods This study is an analysis of systematic review abstracts. Searches were conducted on September 23, 2019 on PubMed and Embase using the advanced search feature to retrieve systematic reviews regarding tonsillectomies. The nine most severe forms of spin were then evaluated. Spin was classified by two investigators in parallel, with each blinded to the classifications of the other. Study characteristics were also recorded in duplicate. Consensus meetings between investigators were held to resolve disagreements. Results In the 85 included systematic reviews, at least one form of spin was present in 44.7% (38/85) of abstracts. Journals with higher impact factors were less likely to contain spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews (point biserial correlation coefficient of −0.30). No statistically significant associations were found between the presence of spin and intervention type (P = .56) or adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (P = .08); however, there was a significant association between spin and funding source (P = .03). Conclusions Spin was common in the abstracts of our sample of tonsillectomy systematic reviews. Researchers, clinicians, and peer reviewers could benefit from learning to recognize spin in medical literature. Further research is needed into the effects of spin on clinical decision making. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 131:E727–E731, 2021

Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: The Presence of Spin in the Abstract

“…Similarly, adherence to PRISMA did not significantly impact the spin rate for articles related to Achilles tendon injuries. 14 Outside of hand surgery, Cooper et al 15 similarly noted that adherence to PRISMA did not impact the rate of spin for SRs related to tonsillectomy. With respect to SRs related to the treatment of DRF, adherence to PRISMA does not appear to decrease the presence of spin in the abstract.…”

“…The concept of “spin” within SRs and MAs has been gaining attention in a variety of fields and has been the subject of prior investigations. 12 -19 Spin has been defined as “the use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results.” 20,21 While less nefarious than intentional misconduct and false reporting, “spin” functions as a type of reporting bias that can impact the reader’s interpretation of study’s results. Spin can be of additional concern when it is present in the abstract of a manuscript as many clinicians review only the abstract of articles.…”