Background Spin—the misrepresentation of a study’s actual results—has the potential to alter a clinician’s interpretation of the study’s findings and therefore could affect patient care. Studies have shown spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews from a variety of other medical disorders and specialties. Aims Our primary aim was to evaluate whether the nine most severe types of spin occurred in systematic review abstracts’ concerning diabetic neuropathy treatments. Secondly, we aimed to determine whether spin presence was associated with the methodological quality of a systematic review. Methods A search of MEDLINE and Embase collected 1297 articles focused on diabetic neuropathy treatments, of which we included 114 systematic reviews for spin assessment. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin as defined by Yachitz et al. The methodological quality of a systematic review was determined by using the AMSTAR-2 instrument. All screening and data extraction were conducted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Since the final sample size of 114 was not sufficiently powered to do multivariable logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios which evaluated relationships between spin presence within abstracts and study characteristics. Results From the 114 articles reviewed, spin was present in 7.9% of the studies (9/114), with spin type 5: “conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite the high risk of bias in the included primary studies” as the most frequent in our study. Spin types 1, 2, 6, and 8 were not identified. No association was observed between the study characteristics and spin presence, including the methodological quality of a systematic review. Conclusions Overall, spin is infrequently observed in abstracts of systematic reviews covering diabetic neuropathy treatments. When comparing our results to other fields of medicine, the field of diabetic neuropathy research publishes systematic reviews whose abstracts mostly portray the findings of the review’s full-text to reflect the results adequately.

In medical education, the nervous system is often reported to be the most challenging subject by students and practitioners. This entrenched dislike and fear of neuroanatomy has led to a culture of “neurophobia,” where a reciprocal cycle of learning‐aversion leads to poor clinical understanding that ultimately impairs patient care. The primary source of neurophobia is high perceived difficulty, which precipitates low levels of interest and knowledge. Additional contributors include: 1) clinical translation of neuroanatomy, 2) visualization of structures, and 3) appreciation of 3D relationships. In response to these barriers, our medical‐student‐inclusive research team is developing “NeuroRelay”: an app that combines a 3D neuroanatomy atlas with dynamic clinical problem‐solving exercises. This descriptive study provides an overview of NeuroRelay development and the role of medical students in increasing the accessibility of medical education. NeuroRelay is made possible by recent OSU‐CHS led efforts to capture some of the highest‐resolution images of the human brain through tissue contrast staining and powerful microCT scanning. Using these techniques, an MRI‐like image is produced every 40 to 90 microns (1 micron = 1 millionth of a meter), visualizing the central nervous system in unparalleled detail. From these high‐resolution scans, medical students and principal investigators build interactive 3D digital models from microCT and MRI scans that showcase neuroanatomical systems (cortical regions, nuclei, tracts). These models can be viewed in augmented + virtual reality, and animated to demonstrate how signals are transmitted throughout the nervous system. NeuroRelay will also be programmed to identify sites of nervous system injury (“lesions”) and engage learning and retention through rapid‐recall quizzes. We anticipate that this student‐inclusive initiative will enhance spatial anatomical knowledge and more directly target students’ needs during learning. Ultimately, we hope that better and bespoke learning tools can address neurology learning aversion, empowering more students to consider neurology specializations.