Evaluation of “Spin” in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Cataract Therapies

Demla, Simran; Shinn, Erin; Ottwell, Ryan; Arthur, Wade; Khattab, Mostafa; Hartwell, Micah; Wright, Drew; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2021.03.032

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparing our findings to that of other spin studies, abstracts of systematic reviews that focused on T2DM tend to have lower rates of spin 23–31 . For example, Ottwell et al found that 30% of systematic reviews focused on acne treatment contained some form of spin in the abstract 32 .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Comparing our findings to that of other spin studies, abstracts of systematic reviews that focused on T2DM tend to have lower rates of spin. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] For example, Ottwell et al found that 30% of systematic reviews focused on acne treatment contained some form of spin in the abstract. 32 Similarly, Reddy et al found that 36% of systematic reviews on rotator cuff management contained spin in their abstract.…”

Section: Primary Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Currently, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that spinthe misinterpretation and distortion of a study's findings-is common in different fields of medicine. To our knowledge, no study has investigated its presence in systematic reviews focused on diabetic therapies.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study by searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our search retrieved 26,490 records, from which 199 studies were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study design parameters. Spin was presented as frequencies and odds ratios to identify associations between study characteristics.Results: Spin was identified in the abstracts of 15 systematic reviews (15/199, 7.5%). Spin type 5 was the most common type identified (7/199, 3.5%). Spin types 1, 2, 4 and 8 were not identified. In the last 5 years (2016)(2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021), seven systematic reviews contained spin within their abstract. There was no association between the presence of spins and any extracted study characteristic. Conclusions:Our findings show that spin infrequently occurs in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, any amount of spin can lead to the distortion of a reader's interpretation of the study's findings. Thus, we provide recommendations with rationale to prevent spin in future systematic reviews.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Primary Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our team's previous investigations found spin in abstracts at rates ranging from 37% in oncology RCTs [18] to 70% in otolaryngology RCTs [37]. More recently, studies have shown that spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. As previously mentioned, Ottwell et al [20] identified spin in 31% of the included abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on acne vulgaris therapies, a finding similar to ours.…”

Section: Xsl • Fosupporting

confidence: 86%

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

Nowlin¹,

Wirtz²,

Wenger³

et al. 2022

JMIR Dermatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In addition, the investigators determined the presence of spin in the abstract of each study. Specifically, the presence of spin was determined after evaluating the full text, based on previously published literature in various aspects of medicine, 7 , 11 , 15 , 18 , 23 , 26 and the type of spin was determined according to the classification by Yavchitz et al 30 Any disagreements between the investigators were resolved by the senior authors (M.V. and M.H.).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Spin has been shown to be prevalent in the systematic reviews of various medical treatments and interventions. 7 , 11 , 15 , 18 , 23 , 24 , 26 In a 2016 study, Yavchitz et al 30 created a classification system for the presence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews. These investigators determined the top 9 types of spin based on severity ( Table 1 ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Orthopaedics: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Reddy

Lulkovich

Wirtz

et al. 2023

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Evaluation of “Spin” in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Cataract Therapies

Cited by 9 publications

References 29 publications

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

Assessment of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatment in Orthopaedics: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About