Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Abstract

Background Spin is the misrepresentation of study findings, which may positively or negatively influence the reader’s interpretation of the results. Little is known regarding the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews, specifically systematic reviews pertaining to the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Objective The primary objective of this study was to characterize and determine the frequency of the most severe forms of spin in systematic review abstracts and to evaluate whether various study characteristics were associated with spin. Methods Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched PubMed and EMBASE for systematic reviews focusing on the management and treatment of acne vulgaris. Our search returned 316 studies, of which 36 were included in our final sample. To be included, each systematic review must have addressed either pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic treatment of acne vulgaris. These studies were screened, and data were extracted in duplicate by two blinded investigators. We analyzed systematic review abstracts for the nine most severe types of spin. Results Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor. Conclusions Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

“…In the field of dermatology, Motosko et al [35] concluded that spin strategies were common in clinical trials covering topical treatments for photoaged skin. Recently, Ottwell et al [36] found spin in 31% of abstracts of systematic reviews focused on acne interventions. While a number of factors may account for this sizable difference, one possible explanation may be the different treatment approaches for acne versus AD [37].…”

“…The strengths of our study include: (1) encouraging reproducibility of our study by making our protocol, search strategy, data extraction form, data, analysis scripts, and other resources available online via the Open Science Framework [22]; (2) performing screening and data extraction in a masked, duplicate fashion to minimize human error and bias, which is currently recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration [29]; and (3) allowing an independent group to verify our data, ensuring that our results are reproducible. The limitations of our study include: (1) subjectivity inherent in classifying spin during data extraction; (2) the cross-sectional design of this study limits the generalizability of our study results; (3) studies not available in English were excluded which limits our sample size; (4) the ability of our search strings to identify all systematic reviews on AD treatments and interventions; (5) since all the industry-funded studies contained spin, we could not evaluate the statistical significance between the industry-funding variable and spin; and (6) in our protocol we prespecified the possibility of a binary logistic regression and calculated a power analysis to determine sample size based on the results of a previous spin study [36]. Our final sample size of 113 was not powered to perform the multivariable logistic regression and therefore is a limitation of our study.…”

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

“…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.…”

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

“…This study was performed in accordance with a previously written protocol available publicly on Open Science Framework (OSF) [19]. A search of PubMed and EMBASE, which incorporates MEDLINE, was performed on September 2, 2019.…”