Letter to the Editor – Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews

Nascimento, Dafne Port; Almeida, Matheus Oliveira de; Scola, L.F.C.; Vanin, Adriane Aver; Oliveira, L.A.; Costa, Lucíola da Cunha Menezes; Costa, Leonardo Oliveira Pena

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.016

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unfortunately, communication to the general public often reflects intentional or non-intentional misrepresentation or "spin" of the research findings. [49][50][51][52] News and social media outlets also tend to reduce conclusions on a body of evidence and recommendations for treatment to binary choices (eg, "do it" versus "don't do it") that may…”

Section: Methods and Guidance To Produce A Reliable Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lay public and policy makers may depend on these outlets for interpreting evidence syntheses and CPGs. Unfortunately, communication to the general public often reflects intentional or non-intentional misrepresentation or “spin” of the research findings 49–52 . News and social media outlets also tend to reduce conclusions on a body of evidence and recommendations for treatment to binary choices (eg, “do it” versus “don’t do it”) that may be assigned an actionable symbol (eg, red/green traffic lights, smiley/frowning face emoji).…”

Section: Part 1 the State Of Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Kolaski

Logan

Ioannidis

2023

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy. A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work. Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

show abstract

Section: Methods and Guidance To Produce A Reliable Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Part 1 the State Of Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Kolaski

Logan

Ioannidis

2023

JBI Evidence Synthesis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lay public and policy makers may depend on these outlets for interpreting evidence syntheses and CPGs. Unfortunately, communication to the general public often reflects intentional or non-intentional misrepresentation or “spin” of the research findings 49-52 . News and social media outlets also tend to reduce conclusions on a body of evidence and recommendations for treatment to binary choices (eg, “do it” versus “don’t do it”) that may be assigned an actionable symbol (eg, red/green traffic lights, smiley/frowning face emoji).…”

Section: Part 1 the State Of Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well-documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in-depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

show abstract

“…The lay public and policy makers may depend on these outlets for interpreting evidence syntheses and CPGs. Unfortunately, communication to the general public often reflects intentional or non-intentional misrepresentation or "spin" of the research findings (Alnemer et al, 2015;Haber et al, 2018;Nascimento et al, 2021;Swetland et al, 2021). News and social media outlets also tend to reduce conclusions on a body of evidence and recommendations for treatment to binary choices (eg, "do it" versus "don't do it") that may be assigned an actionable symbol (eg, red/green traffic lights, smiley/frowning face emoji).…”

Section: Influences On the State Of Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Kolaski

Logan

Ioannidis

2023

Acta Anaesthesiol Scand

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well‐documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in‐depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

show abstract

Letter to the Editor – Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews

Cited by 15 publications

References 18 publications

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Guidance to Best Tools and Practices for Systematic Reviews

Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About