Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes

Abstract

Poor reporting in randomized clinical trial (RCT) abstracts reduces quality and misinforms readers. Spin, a biased presentation of findings, could frequently mislead clinicians to accept a clinical intervention despite non-significant primary outcome. Therefore, good reporting practices and absence of spin enhances research quality. We aim to assess the reporting quality and spin in abstracts of RCTs evaluating the effect of periodontal therapy on cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes. Methods PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and 17 trial registration platforms were searched. Cohort, non-randomized, non-English studies, and pediatric studies were excluded. RCT abstracts were reviewed by 2 authors using the CONSORT for abstracts and spin checklists for data extraction. Cohen's Kappa statistic was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Data on the selected RCT publication metrics were collected. Descriptive analysis was performed with non-parametric methods. Correlation analysis between quality, spin and bibliometric parameters was conducted. Results 24 RCTs were selected for CONSORT analysis and 14 fulfilled the criteria for spin analysis. Several important RCT elements per CONSORT were neglected in the abstract including description of the study population (100%), explicitly stated primary outcome (87%), methods of randomization and blinding (100%), trial registration (87%). No RCT examined true outcomes (CVD events). A significant fraction of the abstracts appeared with at least one form of spin in the results and conclusions (86%) and claimed some treatment benefit in

Abstracts for reports of randomized trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

“…For this reason, allowing authors more words in their abstracts might be a simple method to improve the reporting quality of abstracts. In addition to larger word counts, reporting of trial registration and funding were also positively correlated with high-quality reporting [71] . In the multivariate analysis of relevant factors to spin severity, we found that research from non-Asian regions might be relevant to fewer spin strategies.…”

Does Nonsurgical Periodontal Treatment Improve Systemic Health?

“…We need to understand the quality of the primary literature. While a poor-quality SR/MA does not necessarily mean that the included studies are also of low quality, concerns regarding their rigor have been raised (Faggion et al 2016; Shaqman et al 2020). Examining the methodological rigor of individual studies is critical to understanding the true nature of the quality of literature in the entire domain.…”

A review of high impact journals found that misinterpretation of non-statistically significant results from randomized trials was common

“…Investigators, authors, editors of journals, clinicians and patients all have a desire for definitive answers, and this might encourage investigators to translate their findings into definitive statements (e.g., no effect) even when this is not supported by the statistical findings. Yet, equally problematic, editors and reviewers might insist on specific language (e.g., non-significant), sometimes against the better judgement of the authors [33] . Often this insistence on specific language originates from the desire not to be seen to be creating any spin whereby borderline statistical significance is over-interpreted [6 , 29] .…”