Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals

Abstract

We have identified ‘spin’ in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin 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’. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

“How Well Does Your Structural Equation Model Fit Your Data?”: Is Marcoulides and Yuan’s Equivalence Test the Answer?

“…The widespread adoption of Hu and Bentler's (1999) cut-point criteria has also led to a practical research problem (Barrett, 2007;Jellison et al, 2019). Researchers using structural equation models often provide multiple fit index values such as the chi-square test statistic and p value, CFI, RMSEA, and others.…”

Messaging in Biological Psychiatry: Misrepresentations, Their Causes, and Potential Consequences

“…Numerous studies have characterized and quantified these embellishments, 14 , 31 , 32 called spin in the specialized literature, and psychiatry journals are not immune to them. 33 The most misleading form of spin consists of an obvious inconsistency between the observations described earlier in the article and the conclusions drawn at the end of the article or in the summary. For example, a study reported that treating children with ADHD with a psychostimulant does not improve their reading performance and does not decrease their risk of early school dropout.…”

Transparent and Reproducible Research Practices in the Surgical Literature

“…32 Previous research indicates that abstracts may not be as informative due to the high incidence of spin, a form of selective reporting bias where the results in an abstract are inconsistent with the actual findings in the body of the paper. [33][34][35] As such, these paywalls limit the self-correction of the scientific process and spread of the latest medical research, which is deleterious to patient care. By limiting a physician's ability to effectively analyze the literature, poor clinical decisions become more likely.…”