Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma

Okonya, Ochije; Lai, Elaine; Khattab, Mostafa; Ottwell, Ryan; Arthur, Wade; Khaimi, Mahmoud A.; Wright, Drew; Hartwell, Micah; Vassar, Matt

doi:10.1097/ijg.0000000000001735

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Reddy et al found that 36% of systematic reviews on rotator cuff management contained spin in their abstract 33 . However, percentages of abstracts containing spin from other medical specialties and disorders were similar to that of ours: smoking cessation (3.5%), 34 ophthalmology (2.9%), 35 and otolaryngology (10%) 36 32…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…32 Similarly, Reddy et al found that 36% of systematic reviews on rotator cuff management contained spin in their abstract. 33 However, percentages of abstracts containing spin from other medical specialties and disorders were similar to that of ours: smoking cessation (3.5%), 34 ophthalmology (2.9%), 35 and otolaryngology (10%). 36 While our findings showed lower amounts of spin compared to systematic reviews in other fields, the most common spin types were similar to the findings of Ottwell and colleagues who also found the two most prevalent spin types to be types three and five.…”

Section: Primary Findingssupporting

confidence: 79%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims: Currently, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that spinthe misinterpretation and distortion of a study's findings-is common in different fields of medicine. To our knowledge, no study has investigated its presence in systematic reviews focused on diabetic therapies.Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study by searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our search retrieved 26,490 records, from which 199 studies were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study design parameters. Spin was presented as frequencies and odds ratios to identify associations between study characteristics.Results: Spin was identified in the abstracts of 15 systematic reviews (15/199, 7.5%). Spin type 5 was the most common type identified (7/199, 3.5%). Spin types 1, 2, 4 and 8 were not identified. In the last 5 years (2016)(2017)(2018)(2019)(2020)(2021), seven systematic reviews contained spin within their abstract. There was no association between the presence of spins and any extracted study characteristic. Conclusions:Our findings show that spin infrequently occurs in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, any amount of spin can lead to the distortion of a reader's interpretation of the study's findings. Thus, we provide recommendations with rationale to prevent spin in future systematic reviews.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Primary Findingssupporting

confidence: 79%

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our team's previous investigations found spin in abstracts at rates ranging from 37% in oncology RCTs [18] to 70% in otolaryngology RCTs [37]. More recently, studies have shown that spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48]. As previously mentioned, Ottwell et al [20] identified spin in 31% of the included abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on acne vulgaris therapies, a finding similar to ours.…”

Section: Xsl • Fosupporting

confidence: 86%

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

Nowlin¹,

Wirtz²,

Wenger³

et al. 2022

JMIR Dermatol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study’s results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions. Objective The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles. Methods We used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic. Results A total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified. Conclusions We have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020.

show abstract

“…When comparing the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews from the field of dermatology with other specialties, dermatology-focused systematic reviews appear to contain more spin in the abstract than systematic reviews focused on tinnitus and glaucoma therapies. 29,30 However, systematic reviews from the field of dermatology appear to contain less spin than systematic reviews focused on therapies for lower back pain. 31 For example, Nascimento et al 31 found that 80% (53/66) of systematic reviews focused on low-back pain treatments contained spin.…”

Section: Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Hillman¹

2023

Cutis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spin is a way of reporting that distorts the true findings; we sought to investigate the prevalence of spin in systematic review abstracts on psoriasis treatments and whether study characteristics were associated with spin. We searched MEDLINE and Embase to obtain our sample. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the 9 most severe types of spin and other study characteristics.The methodological quality was assessed to explore potential relationships between spin and study quality. Search queries returned 3200 articles, which included 173 systematic reviews. Spin was present in systematic review abstracts. Preventing spin is essential for improving future systematic reviews.Cutis. 2023;111:E21-E29. Psoriasis is an inflammatory autoimmune skin condition that affects approximately 125 million individuals worldwide, with approximately 8 million patients in the United States. 1 Psoriasis not only involves a cosmetic component but also comprises other comorbidities, such as psoriatic arthritis, cardiovascular disease, and psychiatric disorders, that can influence patient quality of life. [2][3][4] In addition, the costs associated with psoriasis are substantial, with an estimated economic burden of $35.2 billion in the United States in 2015. 5 Given the prevalence of psoriasis and its many effects on patients, it is important that providers have high-quality evidence regarding efficacious treatment options.

show abstract

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma

Cited by 4 publications

References 19 publications

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews for the pharmacological treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis

An Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About