Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Objective Spin, the misrepresentation and distortion of research findings, has been shown to affect clinical decision making. Spin has been found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in various fields of medicine, but no study has tested for the presence of spin in otolaryngology RCTs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the abstracts of RCTs found in the otolaryngology literature for spin. Methods In this cross‐sectional analysis, we analyzed the abstracts of RCTs for spin using a pilot‐tested form. Double data extraction was performed by two blinded authors, and discrepancies were resolved using mutual discussion. Results Out of the 534 PubMed citations retrieved by our search string, 162 parallel‐group RCTs with clearly defined primary and secondary endpoints were identified. Further analysis identified 47 trials with nonsignificant primary outcomes, which were then evaluated for spin. Spin was identified in 33 of the 47 (70%) abstracts. Spin was found in the results sections of 25 (53%) of the included abstracts and was found in the conclusion section of 27 (57%) of the abstracts. Spin was not present in the titles of any of the included studies. Conclusion Spin was common in our sample of otolaryngology RCTs. Spin may potentially create false impressions about the true validity of a drug or intervention. Further research needs to test for potential clinical implications of spin in the otolaryngology literature. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 129:2036–2040, 2019

Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes

“…Our results agreed with other studies in the medical literature that investigated spin strategies and misrepresentation of RCT results with various methodologies [4,5,[51][52][53][54]. Austin et al [5] reported some form of spin to exist in 47% of the included RCT abstracts while Cooper et al [53] reported spin to be as high as 70% of the included articles.…”

“…Our results agreed with other studies in the medical literature that investigated spin strategies and misrepresentation of RCT results with various methodologies [4,5,[51][52][53][54]. Austin et al [5] reported some form of spin to exist in 47% of the included RCT abstracts while Cooper et al [53] reported spin to be as high as 70% of the included articles. Interestingly, Pitkin et al [8] compared data reported in the abstract of a random sample of RCTs published in 6 major medical journals to the data presented in the full-text manuscripts and found that inconsistencies at variable levels (18%-68%) existed between data reported in the abstract compared to the full text.…”

“…With this method, we aimed to control the magnitude of subjectivity. We employed spin analysis previously used by other groups [1,4,6,53]. Therefore, our analysis was focused on abstract sections and might have missed additional spin strategies present in the full text.…”

The SSSPIN study—spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis

“…We compared the prevalence of spin in spin studies with historical data on spin prevalence calculated in our previous systematic review 2. However, recent studies of spin suggest that the prevalence of spin has remained stable over the past two years 34567. Different study designs are prone to different biases.…”

“…Spin in scientific papers refers to practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers to view the results in a more favourable light 1. Identification and characterisation of spin is an active area of research with a systematic review of spin studies published in 20172 and additional recent studies 34567. The findings of these studies suggest that the prevalence of spin is high across a variety of research fields and that interventions to reduce spin are needed.…”