Spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention
Author:
Cole Wesley Tanner1, Wittl Peter1, Arthur Wade1, Ottwell Ryan1, Greiner Benjamin2, Koshy Gershon3, Chronister Justin3, Hartwell Micah14, Staheli Jonathan1, Wright Drew N.5, Sealey Meghan6, Zhu Lan6, Vassar Matt14
Affiliation:
1. Office of Medical Student Research , Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences , Tulsa , OK , USA 2. Department of Internal Medicine , University of Texas Medical Branch , Galveston , TX , USA 3. Department of Internal Medicine , Oklahoma State University Medical Center , Tulsa , OK , USA 4. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences , Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences , Tulsa , OK , USA 5. Samuel J. Wood Library & C. V. Starr Biomedical Information Center , Weill Cornell Medical College , New York , NY , USA 6. Department of Statistics , Oklahoma State University , Stillwater , OK , USA
Abstract
Abstract
Context
“Spin” is a form of bias that involves highlighting study results in a way that presents the conclusions about benefit or efficacy beyond the scope of the data. Spin in the abstract of published studies has the potential to affect patient care, making investigations about its presence and prevalence important for readers.
Objectives
To evaluate the most severe types of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods
Using a cross sectional study design, the authors searched MEDLINE and Embase with the terms “percutaneous coronary intervention,” “percutaneous coronary revascularization,” “PCI,” “systematic review,” “meta analysis,” and “meta-analysis.” To be considered for this study, the article must have (1) focused on PCI; (2) had either a systematic review or metaanalysis study design; (3) been conducted on human subjects; and (4) been available in English. Reviews were excluded if these criteria were not met. Each included article was assessed for the nine most severe types of spin as defined in a previously published article, as well as other study characteristics (type of intervention being compared, date the review was received, adherence of systematic review and/or meta-analysis to Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews or Metanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines, requirement of PRISMA guidelines by the publishing journal, the publishing journal’s five-year impact factor, and sources of funding).
Results
Our database search retrieved 7,038 records; 2,190 duplicates were removed. Initial title and abstract screening led to the exclusion of 4,367 records, and an additional 281 records were excluded during full text screening. An arbitrary limit of 200 articles was applied for this analysis; five additional articles were excluded for ineligible study design, so 195 were included in our final analysis. Spin was present in the abstracts of 43 studies from that pool (22.1%). Spin type 3—selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention—occurred most frequently (29; 14.8%). The presence of spin was not associated with any of the extracted study characteristics.
Conclusions
Our data showed that spin occurred in more than one in every five systematic reviews or metaanalyses of PCI. Spin has the potential to distort a reader’s ability to translate the true findings of a study; therefore, efforts are needed to prevent spin from appearing in article summaries.
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Subject
Complementary and alternative medicine,Complementary and Manual Therapy
Reference31 articles.
1. Saint, S, Christakis, DA, Saha, S, Saha, S, Elmore, JG, Welsh, DE, et al.. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:881–4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.00202.x. 2. Mulrow, CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994;309:597–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597. 3. Marcelo, A, Gavino, A, Isip-Tan, IT, Apostol-Nicodemus, L, Mesa-Gaerlan, FJ, Firaza, PN, et al.. A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital. Evid Base Med 2013;18:48–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/eb-2012-100537. 4. Gøtzsche, PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Contr Clin Trials 1989;10:31–56. 5. Mbuagbaw, L, Thabane, M, Vanniyasingam, T, Debono, VB, Kosa, S, Zhang, S, et al.. Improvement in the quality of abstracts in major clinical journals since CONSORT extension for abstracts: a systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 2014;38:245–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.05.012.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|