Assessment of spin in abstracts of Endodontic Systematic Reviews with meta‐analyses published between 2010 and 2022. Are we in need of more transparent interpretation of findings?

Abstract

Aim Spin refers to reporting, interpretation and extrapolation‐related distortion or manipulation of the findings of a study. The aim of this report was to identify the prevalence and extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews (SRs) including meta‐analyses in the scientific field of endodontics. Methodology A sensitive and inclusive search strategy in PubMed was developed to identify eligible SRs with meta‐analyses in endodontics, supplemented by an electronic search within 3 major specialty journals, from January 1, 2010, to April 16, 2022. Inclusion and extent of spin were recorded, per domain and following issues related to misleading reporting, interpretation and inappropriate extrapolation of meta‐analyses' findings. Association of spin with publication characteristics such as year, journal type, number of authors, continent of authorship, funding, primary study design and significance of the outcome was explored. Results A total of 186 SRs with meta‐analyses were retrieved, and inclusion of spin was detected in 125 abstracts (67.2%), for one or more domains. Most abstracts were affected by more than one type of spin (91/125; 72.8%). There was evidence that abstracts of meta‐analyses of non‐significant findings had 60% lower odds for inclusion of spin (odds ratio, OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.83; p = .04), after adjusting for year, journal type and number of authors. Conclusions Misleading reporting and misinterpretation of findings in abstracts of meta‐analyses are evident in endodontic research. Efforts should be reinforced to increase awareness within the scientific and academic community to improve adherence to transparent reporting and interpretation.

Critical analysis of the reporting quality of animal studies within Endodontics using the Preferred Reporting Items for Animal Studies in Endodontics (PRIASE) 2021 quality standard checklist

“…Low scores were also recorded for items 3c and 3e. For clinicians, scientists and readers who do not usually go through the entire manuscript, it is very important that the key details of the animal and the experimental model are provided in the abstract section to further facilitate transparent and valid reporting, interpretation and extrapolation of research (Giannakoulas et al, 2022). Regarding item 3e, it was adequately and partially reported in only 24% and 48% of the studies, respectively.…”