Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study

Nascimento, Dafne Port; Costa, Leonardo Oliveira Pena; Gonzalez, Gabrielle Zoldan; Maher, Christopher G.; Moseley, Anne M.

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2019.03.024

Cited by 26 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 219 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3 Spin can appear in the title, abstract or in the full text. 4 Spin has been identified in several healthcare studies, such as in 98% of clinical trials abstracts of physical therapy interventions for low back pain 5 and in 68% of abstracts from a wide range of medical fields. 1 The most severe types of spin in abstracts are: recommendations of an intervention, or title suggesting a positive effect, that are not consistent with the study findings; selective reporting of positive and negative outcomes; safety based on non-statistically significant results; selective reporting of harm outcomes; and the conclusions are overstated to other interventions.…”

Section: Spin Of Results In Scientific Articles Might Kill Youmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spin of results in scientific articles might kill you

Nascimento

Costa

2019

Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Spin Of Results In Scientific Articles Might Kill Youmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spin of results in scientific articles might kill you

Nascimento

Costa

2019

Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… Publishing reviews and responses alongside the paper in cases of unresolved differences of opinion between reviewers and authors [ 76 ]. Checking review papers to avoid what Greenberg ([ 75 ], p. 4) called a lens effect, ‘in which a small number of these influential review papers and model papers containing no data on claim validity collected and focused citation (similar to a magnifying lens collecting light) on particular primary data papers supportive of the belief, while isolating others that weakened it.’ Checking abstracts thoroughly to ensure that they are an accurate reflection of the content of the paper [ 77 ]. Favouring systematic reviews that document clearly how the review was conducted, with decision rules for including or excluding specific studies [ 78 ], over descriptive reviews that may be selective in the literature included without revealing the reasons.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Checking abstracts thoroughly to ensure that they are an accurate reflection of the content of the paper [ 77 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Checking review papers to avoid what Greenberg ([75], p. 4) called a lens effect, 'in which a small number of these influential review papers and model papers containing no data on claim validity collected and focused citation (similar to a magnifying lens collecting light) on particular primary data papers supportive of the belief, while isolating others that weakened it.' • Checking abstracts thoroughly to ensure that they are an accurate reflection of the content of the paper [77].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evidence for Citation Networks in Studies of Free-Roaming Cats: A Case Study Using Literature on Trap–Neuter–Return (TNR)

Calver

Fleming

2020

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trap–Neuter–Return and its variants (hereafter TNR) aims to control unowned cat populations. Papers on this topic form a useful case study of how how an area of literature grows, papers become influential, and citation networks form, influencing future study as well as public perceptions of the science. We analysed 145 TNR studies published 2002–2019. Common topics, identified by frequently used language, were population control, interactions with wildlife, disease transmission (including implications for pets, wildlife and humans), free-roaming cats, and feral and domestic cat management. One or more papers on each of these topics was judged influential because of high citations overall, high average citations/year, or frequent mentions in social media. Open Access papers were more influential in social media, raising greater public awareness than studies published in journals that were less accessible. While divergent views exist on a range of topics, the network analysis of the TNR literature indicated potential for forming self-reinforcing groups of authors. While it is encouraging that diverse views are expressed, there is a risk of reduced dialogue interactions between groups, potentially constraining dialogue to refine arguments, share information, or plan research. Journal editors could encourage communication by choosing reviewers from different camps to assess manuscripts and by asking authors to acknowledge alternative views.

show abstract

“…After screening if more than 200 systematic reviews or meta-analyses are eligible, articles were randomized using STATA and a convenience sample of the first 200 articles was sequentially extracted. We prespecified in our protocol the inclusion of 200 systematic reviews, as our study is descriptive in nature and this sample size is consistent with previous meta-research studies [16][17][18][19]. When examining the full article after the initial screening, we only included studies pertaining to screening, diagnosis, prognostic values, outcome measures, therapeutic interventions (including prevention and education), and quality of life (postintervention) within an emergency setting.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Ferrell

Schell

Ottwell

et al. 2021

European Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe objective of this study was to assess for spin -a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms -within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM).Methods PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The included full-text studies were read and evaluated for spin using a previously determined search strategy. Two authors further evaluated study quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. ResultsOur PubMed search identified 478 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of which a random sample of 200 was selected for data extraction. Spin within the abstract of the manuscript was identified in 34.5% (69/200) of the included reviews. We identified seven of the nine spin types, with two types being most common:(1) conclusion claiming a benefit despite high risk of bias among studies reviewed (19.5% of abstracts), and (2) conclusion claiming a benefit despite reporting bias (14.5%). No significant associations were found between the presence of spin and any of the evaluated study characteristics, the AMSTAR-2 appraisal, or the journal of publication. ConclusionSpin is commonly present in abstracts of EM systematic reviews. The reporting quality for EM systematic reviews requires improvement. Measures should be taken to improve the overall review process and way information is conveyed through abstracts. European

show abstract

Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study

Cited by 26 publications

References 219 publications

Spin of results in scientific articles might kill you

Spin of results in scientific articles might kill you

Evidence for Citation Networks in Studies of Free-Roaming Cats: A Case Study Using Literature on Trap–Neuter–Return (TNR)

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About