Evaluating Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Cannabis use Disorder

Abstract

Background: Clinicians rely upon abstracts to provide them quick synopses of research findings that may apply to their practice. Spin can exist within these abstracts that distorts or misrepresents the findings. Our goal was to evaluate the level of spin within systematic reviews (SRs) focused on the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in May 2020. To meet inclusion criteria, publications had to be either an SR or meta-analysis related to the treatment of cannabis use. Screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate and masked fashion. Study quality was assessed using AMSTAR-2 Results: 16/24 SRs (66.7%) contained at least one form of spin in the abstract. The most common forms of spin identified were type 3-selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention (45.8%)-and type 8-the review's findings from a surrogate marker or a specific outcome to the global improvement of the disease (37.5%). No significant association between spin and intervention type, PRISMA requirements, or funding source was identified. Weak positive correlations were found between the presence of spin and abstract word count (r ¼.217) and between spin and AMSTAR-2 rating (r ¼ 0.143). "Moderate" was the most common AMSTAR-2 rating (9/24, 37.5%), followed by "low" (7/24, 29.2%) and "critically low" (7/24, 29.2%). One systematic review received an AMSTAR-2 rating of "high" (1/24, 4.2%). Conclusions: Spin was common among abstracts from the SRs focused on the treatments for CUD. Higher quality studies may help reduce the overall rate as well as standardizing treatment outcomes. To facilitate this, we encourage all authors, peer-reviewers, and editors to be more aware of the various types of spin as they can help reduce the overall amount of spin seen within the literature.

Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies

“…In the broader biomedical literature, misreporting and misinterpretation of study findings are evidently common practices that produce spin bias [ 10 , 20 , 21 ]. A comparison of 896 abstracts with their full text conclusions observed that 15–35% were “inconsistent” [ 22 ].…”

“…As far as we know, this is the only report on the identification of nonsignificant results and spin bias in the Discussion sections of published articles. Spin bias has been examined between an abstract and the text in randomized controlled trials [ 20 , 22 , 24 , 25 ] and in systematic reviews [ 21 , 26 , 27 ]. Spin bias in abstracts is especially serious because many readers look only at the abstract.…”

Evaluating the Relationship between Industry Sponsorship and Conflicts of Interest among Systematic Review Authors on Treatments for Cannabis use Disorder

“…Study materials, data, and protocols were provided on Open Science Framework to increase transparency and reproducibility of our results 18 . Additionally, our methodology was based from a previous study 21 …”

Assessing the Presence of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Testicular Cancer Treatment, Screening, and Quality of Life: Cross-Sectional Analysis

“…Other studies have found at least a 30% prevalence of spin in systematic reviews in the fields of emergency medicine, ophthalmology (especially cataract therapies), addiction medicine (including cannabis use disorder and alcohol use disorder), and physiotherapy (particularly low back pain). [8][9][10][11][12][13] Systematic reviews provide a complete source of evidence-based medicine, as they offer clinicians a comprehensive synthesis of the available findings on a specific treatment. 14 Since researchers collate and analyze many randomized controlled trials for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these reports are often considered the gold standard for evidence-based medicine and are used to create clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).…”

“…The methods described within our study are also described in similar concurrent studies that evaluated systematic reviews for spin and assessed method qualities in their respective fields. [9][10][11][12] We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 18,19 and Murad and Wang's 18,19 guidelines for meta-epidemiological studies to draft this manuscript.…”