Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

Steegmans, Pauline A. J.; Girolamo, Nicola Di; Reynders, Reint Meursinge

doi:10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4

Cited by 11 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are currently no published reports related to the assessment of SPIN in orthodontic research per se; however, a protocol for identification of SPIN related to adverse effects described in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions has lately emerged, with an initiative to identify SPIN effects that might potentially mislead readership and misguide clinical practice (20).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020

Makou

Eliades

Koletsi

2021

European Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Aim To assess the prevalence of and identify factors associated with SPIN in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses. Materials and methods Electronic search was performed within the contents of five orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) to identify meta-analyses of studies involving humans, from 1 January 2000 until 31 August 2020. Inclusion of SPIN in the abstract of meta-analyses, defined as misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and inappropriate extrapolation of the findings, was documented. Extent of SPIN and associations with journal and year of publication, type of study, number of authors, continent of authorship, methodologist involvement, funding, and significance of the primary outcome were investigated. Results One hundred and nine meta-analyses were identified, with the highest proportion being published in the European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO: 31/109; 28.4%). Inclusion of SPIN, in at least one domain, was recorded in nearly half (53/109; 48.6%) of the studies, of which 30 (56.6%) included 2 or more domains of SPIN. Meta-analyses of observational studies presented 1.66 times higher risk for including SPIN in their abstracts compared with interventional ones [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 1.14, 2.40; P = 0.007], after adjusting for a number of predictors. Studies with a large number of authors (≥6) presented 1.76 times higher risk of SPIN (≥6 versus 1–3: 95% CIs: 1.04, 2.97; Wald test, P = 0.021), conditional on the pre-defined predictors. Conclusions Flaws in the reporting and interpretation of the findings of abstracts of meta-analyses, as framed by inclusion of SPIN are persistent in orthodontic research, being more prevalent in meta-analyses of observational studies. Consistent, multidirectional efforts should be endorsed to improve the quality of the disseminated research findings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020

Makou

Eliades

Koletsi

2021

European Journal of Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Simultaneously, it also makes researchers improve reporting quality which will, in turn, increase the likelihood of including adverse effects in the results. 52 The results of the current study indicated that 64.4% of systematic review articles reporting accelerated 2015 There is some evidence that LLLT can slightly accelerate OTM but this result is not significant and the effect estimated is not clinically relevant.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…56 Interestingly, suboptimal reporting of the results in the abstract of randomised and non-randomised studies raised the chances of exaggeration. As a corollary, readers will mainly explore the title and the abstract of an article, 52 and so it becomes imperative that the scientific community pays more importance to an optimal and unbiased reporting style.…”

Section: Misleading Extrapolationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of exaggerated claims in the abstracts of systematic reviews reporting accelerated orthodontic tooth movement: a meta research analysis

Shyagali

Rathore

Kapoor

et al. 2022

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The latest trend in scientific literature review is to scrutinise the practices of false or biased reporting of findings, which is rightly termed as ‘spin’. In recent years, accelerated tooth movement has gained attention from the orthodontic community, but the findings still remain unclear and controversial. Objectives To estimate the frequency of distorted claims and over-interpretation of abstracts of systematic reviews related to accelerated orthodontic tooth movement. The objective was to differentiate the type of claim and to determine its prevalence. Methods A literature search was performed using the Cochrane library and the top five most prominent orthodontic journals for systematic reviews on accelerated orthodontics were identified by applying appropriate key words. According to pre-set selection criteria, only systematic reviews published between January 2010 and September 2021 were included. The selected articles were scrutinised for the assigned exclusion criteria. The articles were finally scanned for false claims by two independent reviewers. The identified claims fell into either the categories of misleading interpretation, misleading reporting or misleading extrapolation. The obtained data were tabulated and analysed using the one-way ANOVA statistical test to indicate the difference between the different types of reported claims. Results There were 98 systematic reviews identified in total, of which 59 articles met the selection criteria and 39 articles were excluded. Of the 59 included articles, 38 systematic reviews had exaggerated claims. Twenty-two of the reported claims came under the misleading reporting category, 10 fell under the misleading interpretation category and 6 came under the misleading extrapolation category. The difference noted between the reporting prevalence of different types of claim was statistically significant (P < 0.001). In misleading reporting, it was noted that most of the systematic reviews refrained from reporting the adverse effects of treatment. Conclusion The prevalence of exaggerated claims is high in the abstracts of systematic reviews related to accelerated orthodontic tooth movement. It is recommended that a clinician critically assess the claims presented in systematic reviews which are considered to be the hallmark articles of evidence-based practice. Orthodontists should be careful when applying the findings in clinical practice.

show abstract

“…They developed a classification scheme to standardise strategies used for spin, 6 and up to 70% of the biomedical research literature has been found to contain spin. 3–5 In a study assessing the impact of spin on readers, Boutron et al studied 300 oncologists who were experienced in clinical research. They were randomly allocated to read either a spin or non-spin abstract and asked to answer the question ‘Based on this abstract, do you think treatment A would be beneficial to patients?’ on a scale from 0 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 1 2 Further, previous studies have shown that spin, defined as reporting practices so that results are viewed in a more favourable light, is prevalent in published reports. 3–6 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the statistical significance of results and spin on readers’ interpretation of the results in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial: a randomised trial

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo assess the impact on readers’ interpretation of the results reported in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial with (1) a statistically significant result (SSR), (2) spin, (3) both an SSR and spin compared with (4) no spin and no SSR.ParticipantsHealth students and professionals from universities and health institutions in France and the UK.InterventionsParticipants completed an online questionnaire using Likert scales and free text, after reading one of the four versions of an abstract about a hypothetical randomised trial evaluating ‘Naranex’ and ‘Bulofil’ (two hypothetical drugs) for chronic low back pain. The abstracts differed in (1) reported result of ‘mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI 0.08 to 2.54, p= 0.04)’ or ‘mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI −0.08 to 2.70, p= 0.06)’ and (2) presence or absence of spin. The effect size for the trial’s primary outcome (pain disability score) was the same in each abstract, slightly in favour of Naranex.Primary outcomeThe reader’s interpretation of the trial’s results, based on their answer (1, disagree; 4, neutral; 7, agree) to the following statement: ‘About the main findings of the study, what is your opinion about the following statement: ‘Naranex is better than Bulofil’?’ResultsTwo hundred and ninety-seven of the 404 people randomised to receive one of the four abstracts completed the study. Respondents were more likely to favour Narenex when the abstract reported an SSR without spin, a statistically significant result with spin, a non-statistically significant result with spin, compared with when it reported a non-SSR without spin.ConclusionStatistical significance appears to have influenced readers’ perception whatever the level of spin, while spin influenced readers’ perception when the results were not statistically significant but did not appear to have an impact when results were statistically significant.

show abstract

Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

Cited by 11 publications

References 35 publications

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020

Reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation issues (SPIN) in abstracts of orthodontic meta-analyses published from 2000 to 2020

Evaluation of exaggerated claims in the abstracts of systematic reviews reporting accelerated orthodontic tooth movement: a meta research analysis

Influence of the statistical significance of results and spin on readers’ interpretation of the results in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial: a randomised trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About