Cargando…

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

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 nondermatologi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nowlin, Ross, Wirtz, Alexis, Wenger, David, Ottwell, Ryan, Cook, Courtney, Arthur, Wade, Sallee, Brigitte, Levin, Jarad, Hartwell, Micah, Wright, Drew, Sealey, Meghan, Zhu, Lan, Vassar, Matt
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10334896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632865
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/33996
_version_ 1785070942586667008
author Nowlin, Ross
Wirtz, Alexis
Wenger, David
Ottwell, Ryan
Cook, Courtney
Arthur, Wade
Sallee, Brigitte
Levin, Jarad
Hartwell, Micah
Wright, Drew
Sealey, Meghan
Zhu, Lan
Vassar, Matt
author_facet Nowlin, Ross
Wirtz, Alexis
Wenger, David
Ottwell, Ryan
Cook, Courtney
Arthur, Wade
Sallee, Brigitte
Levin, Jarad
Hartwell, Micah
Wright, Drew
Sealey, Meghan
Zhu, Lan
Vassar, Matt
author_sort Nowlin, Ross
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10334896
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103348962023-07-18 Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis Nowlin, Ross Wirtz, Alexis Wenger, David Ottwell, Ryan Cook, Courtney Arthur, Wade Sallee, Brigitte Levin, Jarad Hartwell, Micah Wright, Drew Sealey, Meghan Zhu, Lan Vassar, Matt JMIR Dermatol Original Paper 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. JMIR Publications 2022-02-24 /pmc/articles/PMC10334896/ /pubmed/37632865 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/33996 Text en ©Ross Nowlin, Alexis Wirtz, David Wenger, Ryan Ottwell, Courtney Cook, Wade Arthur, Brigitte Sallee, Jarad Levin, Micah Hartwell, Drew Wright, Meghan Sealey, Lan Zhu, Matt Vassar. Originally published in JMIR Dermatology (http://derma.jmir.org), 24.02.2022. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Dermatology Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://derma.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Nowlin, Ross
Wirtz, Alexis
Wenger, David
Ottwell, Ryan
Cook, Courtney
Arthur, Wade
Sallee, Brigitte
Levin, Jarad
Hartwell, Micah
Wright, Drew
Sealey, Meghan
Zhu, Lan
Vassar, Matt
Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
title Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
title_full Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
title_fullStr Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
title_short Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis
title_sort spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies: cross-sectional analysis
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10334896/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37632865
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/33996
work_keys_str_mv AT nowlinross spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT wirtzalexis spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT wengerdavid spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT ottwellryan spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT cookcourtney spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT arthurwade spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT salleebrigitte spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT levinjarad spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT hartwellmicah spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT wrightdrew spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT sealeymeghan spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT zhulan spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis
AT vassarmatt spininabstractsofsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysesofmelanomatherapiescrosssectionalanalysis