Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results

Abstract

Background: Spin refers to reporting practices that could distort the interpretation and mislead readers by being more optimistic than the results justify, thereby possibly changing the perception of clinicians and influence their decisions. Because of the clinical importance of accurate interpretation of results and the evidence of spin in other research fields, we aim to identify the nature and frequency of spin in published reports of tinnitus randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess possible determinants and effects of spin.Methods: We searched PubMed systematically for RCTs with tinnitus-related outcomes published from 2015 to 2019. All eligible articles were assessed on actual and potential spin using prespecified criteria.Results: Our search identified 628 studies, of which 87 were eligible for evaluation. A total of 95% of the studies contained actual or potential spin. Actual spin was found mostly in the conclusion of articles, which reflected something else than the reported point estimate (or CI) of the outcome (n = 34, 39%) or which was selectively focused (n = 49, 56%). Linguistic spin (“trend,” “marginally significant,” or “tendency toward an effect”) was found in 17% of the studies. We were not able to assess the association between study characteristics and the occurrence of spin due to the low number of trials for some categories of the study characteristics. We found no effect of spin on type of journal [odds ratio (OR) −0.13, 95% CI −0.56–0.31], journal impact factor (OR 0.17, 95% CI −0.18–0.51), or number of citations (OR 1.95, CI −2.74–6.65).Conclusion: There is a large amount of spin in tinnitus RCTs. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in reporting and interpretation of results. Awareness of different forms of spin must be raised to improve research quality and reduce research waste.

Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in Abstracts of Successful National Institutes of Health Grant Applications, 1985-2020

“…Although methods differ, studies of spin demonstrate that it is not uncommon in one genre of medical literature: the peer-reviewed research article. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 Setting aside for the moment the question of whether spin in medical articles results in harm to patients, the identification and modulation of spin in the peer review process appear to be problematic. 7 , 8 In part, the challenge for authors, reviewers, and readers may be a paucity of information on how spin is realized at the sentence level.…”

Linguistic spin in randomized controlled trials about age-related macular degeneration

“…To minimize this partial subjectivity in the interpretation of linguistic spin, two authors independently completed the data extraction. Second, we defined linguistic spin as the (un)conscious use of language to convince readers of the beneficial effect of the intervention and or to suppress negative results, which is in line with the definition of spin stated in previous literature ( 28 – 30 ). However, there may be examples of studies in which linguistic spin has been used to emphasize the disadvantageous effect of the treatment investigated.…”

“…Linguistic spin was defined as the (un)conscious use of language to convince readers of the beneficial effect of the intervention and or to suppress negative results ( 28 – 30 ). We contacted various authors with expertise on (linguistic) spin by e-mail, aiming to find a database of linguistic spin examples.…”