Analyzing Spin in Abstracts of Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Insignificant Primary Endpoints

Arthur, Wade; Zaaza, Zachariah; Checketts, Jake X.; Johnson, Austin; Middlemist, Kevin; Basener, Clint; Jellison, Samuel; Wayant, Cole; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2019.12.025

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since this publication, several studies have explored spin in RCTs across multiple disciplines, with prevalence estimates ranging from 37.1% to 70%. 6,[20][21][22][23][24] Of interest here, Cooper et al found that 70% of clinical trial abstracts in otolaryngology clinical trials contained spin, which was higher than all other specialties. To date, few studies have evaluated spin in systematic review abstracts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Ménière’s Disease

Heigle

Kee

Ottwell

et al. 2021

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To identify, quantify, and characterize the presence of spin—specific strategies leading to misrepresentation of study results—in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Ménière’s disease treatment. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase on May 28, 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on Ménière’s disease treatment. Returned searches were screened, and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Our sample included 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the 36 included studies, 22 (61.1%) abstracts contained spin while 14 (38.9%) did not. The most common spin types were selective reporting of benefit (10/36, 27.8%) or harm (8/36, 22.2%). Other types of spin occurred when findings were extrapolated to the global improvement of the disease (5/36, 13.9%), beneficial effects were reported with high risk of bias in primary studies (3/36, 8.3%), and when beneficial effects were extrapolated to an entire class of interventions (1/36, 2.8%). No instances of other spin types occurred. Abstracts containing spin were substantively associated with studies of critically low methodological quality compared with studies with low and moderate quality. No studies had a methodological rating of high quality. No associations were observed between spin and intervention types, journal recommendation of adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or funding. We found a negative correlation ( r = −.31) between abstract word limit and presence of spin. Conclusions: Our study highlights that spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of Ménière’s disease is common, and it further enhances the discussion surrounding spin in abstracts of scientific research. Spin in an abstract does not discredit a study’s findings; however, its occurrence should be eliminated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Ménière’s Disease

Heigle

Kee

Ottwell

et al. 2021

Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Spin has been defined by Yavchitz et al 11 as 'a specific way of reporting, intentional or not, to highlight that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment in terms of efficacy or safety is greater than that shown by the results'. Several studies have shown spin to be present in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials [12][13][14][15][16] ; however, comparatively few studies have looked at spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews 17,18 . Thus, the objective of this study is to assess the abstracts of systematic reviews regarding smoking cessation treatments for the presence of spin, and to evaluate whether particular study characteristics are associated with spin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation

Garrett

Koochin

Ottwell

et al. 2021

Tob. Prev. Cessation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION Smoking cessation treatments and available evidence continue to evolve. To stay current with the latest research, physicians often refer to abstracts of systematic reviews. Because abstracts of systematic reviews may have direct effects on patient care, the information within them should be free of ‘spin’. Spin is a specific way of reporting, intentional or not, to highlight that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment in terms of efficacy or safety is greater than that shown by the results (i.e. overstate efficacy and/or understate harm). METHODS We searched systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on interventions and treatments for smoking cessation. Full-text screening, data extraction, evaluation of spin, and quality assessment were conducted in masked, duplicate fashion. Study and journal characteristics were also recorded to determine whether they were associated with the presence of spin. RESULTS A total of 200 systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria were included in the final analyses. Spin occurred in 3.5% (7/200) of the systematic review abstracts included in our sample. No study characteristics were significantly associated with spin. CONCLUSIONS Of the reviewed abstracts in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 96.5% of those that focused on smoking cessation were free of spin. However, the existence of spin warrants further steps to improve the scientific accuracy of abstracts on smoking cessation treatments. By identifying and acknowledging the presence of spin in systematic reviews, we hope to increase awareness about reporting practices in an ultimate effort to improve the integrity of scientific research as a whole.

show abstract

“…The spin strategy is common in general surgical literature 11 and multiple surgical subspecialties such as laparoscopic lower gastrointestinal surgery 12 , colorectal robotic surgery 13 , and orthopedic surgery. 14 The evidence presented in the present systematic review found spin to be also common in bariatric surgery. The spin analysis of the bariatric surgery RCTs showed that several strategies of spin were adapted in the reporting process.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Spin occurs in bariatric surgery randomized controlled trials with a statistically nonsignificant primary outcome: A systematic review

Rassy

Rives‐Lange

Carette

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Analyzing Spin in Abstracts of Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Insignificant Primary Endpoints

Cited by 26 publications

References 17 publications

Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Ménière’s Disease

Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Ménière’s Disease

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation

Spin occurs in bariatric surgery randomized controlled trials with a statistically nonsignificant primary outcome: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About