‘Spin’ in urology non‐randomised studies comparing therapeutic interventions: a temporal analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence of ‘spin’ (i.e., reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results by positively reflecting negative findings or downplaying potential harms) strategies and level of spin in urological observational studies and whether the use of spin has changed over time.Materials and MethodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions in the top five urology journals and major urological subspecialty journals, published between 2000 and 2001, 2010 and 2011, and 2020 and 2021.ResultsA total of 235 studies were included. Spin was identified in 81% of studies, with a median of two strategies per study. The most commonly used strategies were inadequate implication for clinical practice (30%), causal language or causal claim (29%), and use of linguistic spin (29%). Moderate to high levels of spin were found in 55% of conclusions. From 2000 to 2020, the average number of strategies used has significantly decreased each decade (H = 27.459, P < 0.001), and the median level of spin in conclusions was significantly lower in studies published in the 2020s and 2010s than in the 2000s (H = 11.649, P = 0.003).ConclusionsOur results suggest that 81% of urological observational studies comparing therapeutic interventions contained spin. Over the past two decades, the use of spin has significantly declined, but this remains an area for improvement, with 70% of included studies published in the 2020s employing spin. Medical writing should scrupulously avoid words or phrases that are not supported by data in the manuscript.