Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Tinnitus

Rucker, Brayden; Umbarger, Erich; Ottwell, Ryan; Arthur, Wade; Brame, Lacy; Woodson, Elena; Wright, Drew; Hartwell, Micah; Khojasteh, Jam; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1097/mao.0000000000003178

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…33 However, percentages of abstracts containing spin from other medical specialties and disorders were similar to that of ours: smoking cessation (3.5%), 34 ophthalmology (2.9%), 35 and otolaryngology (10%). 36 While our findings showed lower amounts of spin compared to systematic reviews in other fields, the most common spin types were similar to the findings of Ottwell and colleagues who also found the two most prevalent spin types to be types three and five. 32 While our findings showed lower amounts of spin occur compared to most other fields, the most common spin types were similar to the findings of Ottwell and colleagues who also found that spin types three (Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favouring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention) and five (Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies) occurred frequently.…”

Section: Primary Findingssupporting

confidence: 89%

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: Primary Findingssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Similarly, Reddy et al found that 36% of systematic reviews on rotator cuff management contained spin in their abstract 33 . However, percentages of abstracts containing spin from other medical specialties and disorders were similar to that of ours: smoking cessation (3.5%), 34 ophthalmology (2.9%), 35 and otolaryngology (10%) 36 32 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

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

“…al found that 37.5% of SRs in regards to the treatment of tinnitus was critically low and only 12.5% were of high quality. 53 Moreover, Martinez-Mondero et al concluded that "over 50% of these SRs and MAs had weaknesses in at least 3 of the 16 items in the AMSTAR-2." 54 Taken together, our findings are consistent with the existing literature across multiple disease processes within otolaryngology and other medical specialties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential to clinical decision‐making as their recommendations are supported by published literature. Systematic reviews are considered the highest quality of evidence used to underpin these guidelines. However, research to support these recommendations may lack compliance to quality reporting among systematic reviews (SRs). Here, we aim to evaluate the quality of SRs underpinning CPG recommendations for the management of head and neck cancer (HNC). Study Design Retrospective cross‐sectional analysis. Methods Using PubMed, we searched for CPGs pertinent to the management of head and neck cancer published between January 2017 and May 2021. Relevant guidelines were analyzed for all SRs. Cited SRs in CPGs were evaluated using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews‐2 (AMSTAR‐2) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) instruments. Study characteristics were extracted in a masked triplicate fashion. Results A total of 16 CPGs and 142 unique SRs were included in our study. PRISMA completion ranged from 67.15% to 87.65% across CPGs with a mean of 76.41% (SD = 16.9). AMSTAR‐2 completion ranged from 34.38% to 84.38% across CPGs with a mean of 67.55% (SD = 20.9) among all SRs. The lowest rated items included funding sources and publication bias. A higher score was achieved in SR done by Cochrane group and it was only 2.11% (3/142) of all SR's quoted in CPG. Conclusion Adherence to AMSTAR‐2 and PRISMA items exhibits a variation among SRs cited in CPGs for the management of HNC. The mature underpinning CPG recommendation of SRs cited as supportive evidence could be enhanced in reporting quality. Level of Evidence NA Laryngoscope, 132:1976–1983, 2022

show abstract

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Tinnitus

Cited by 5 publications

References 62 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

Analysis of Systematic Reviews in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Head and Neck Cancer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About