Objectives: To identify, quantify, and characterize the presence of spin—specific strategies leading to misrepresentation of study results—in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Ménière’s disease treatment. Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase on May 28, 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on Ménière’s disease treatment. Returned searches were screened, and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Results: Our sample included 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the 36 included studies, 22 (61.1%) abstracts contained spin while 14 (38.9%) did not. The most common spin types were selective reporting of benefit (10/36, 27.8%) or harm (8/36, 22.2%). Other types of spin occurred when findings were extrapolated to the global improvement of the disease (5/36, 13.9%), beneficial effects were reported with high risk of bias in primary studies (3/36, 8.3%), and when beneficial effects were extrapolated to an entire class of interventions (1/36, 2.8%). No instances of other spin types occurred. Abstracts containing spin were substantively associated with studies of critically low methodological quality compared with studies with low and moderate quality. No studies had a methodological rating of high quality. No associations were observed between spin and intervention types, journal recommendation of adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or funding. We found a negative correlation ( r = −.31) between abstract word limit and presence of spin. Conclusions: Our study highlights that spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of Ménière’s disease is common, and it further enhances the discussion surrounding spin in abstracts of scientific research. Spin in an abstract does not discredit a study’s findings; however, its occurrence should be eliminated.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Because industry influence – in the form of study sponsorship and authorial conflicts of interest (COI) – can bias the results and conclusions of systematic reviews, there is a need to understand their role in systematic reviews, particularly for common conditions like psoriasis. Objectives: This study identifies conflicts of interest and industry-author relationships in systematic reviews on psoriasis treatment. Methods: Consistent with our cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on psoriasis treatment. We then performed a subgroup analysis to determine further industry ties within the systemic reviews funded by industry. Results: Our study consisted of 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses by 146 researchers. We found that 22 (81.5%) of the included systematic reviews contained at least 1 conflicted author. Six authors (of 47; 4.1%) disclosed all COI within the systematic review, 23 (of 47; 15.7%) partially disclosed COI but were also found to have undisclosed COI, and 18 (of 47; 12.3%) did not disclose any COI. Thirteen (of 22; 59.1%) contained narratives that favored the treatment group and 19 (of 22; 86.4%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Importantly, 3 systematic reviews were industry-sponsored. In terms of our subgroup analysis, we found several additional industry ties within the primary studies. Conclusion: Our study calls attention to conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, and their influence on research outcomes in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Further, we provide examples of how specific industry ties can influence systematic reviews and recommendations for reporting.