Cargando…

Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention

BACKGROUND: Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lazarus, Clément, Haneef, Romana, Ravaud, Philippe, Boutron, Isabelle
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x
_version_ 1782395074156429312
author Lazarus, Clément
Haneef, Romana
Ravaud, Philippe
Boutron, Isabelle
author_facet Lazarus, Clément
Haneef, Romana
Ravaud, Philippe
Boutron, Isabelle
author_sort Lazarus, Clément
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies. METHODS: In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials). RESULTS: Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84 %) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53 %) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26 %), 25 (20 %), and 34 (27 %) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48 %) articles featured a high level of spin. CONCLUSION: Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4604617
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46046172015-10-15 Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention Lazarus, Clément Haneef, Romana Ravaud, Philippe Boutron, Isabelle BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies. METHODS: In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials). RESULTS: Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84 %) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53 %) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26 %), 25 (20 %), and 34 (27 %) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48 %) articles featured a high level of spin. CONCLUSION: Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC4604617/ /pubmed/26462565 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x Text en © Lazarus et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lazarus, Clément
Haneef, Romana
Ravaud, Philippe
Boutron, Isabelle
Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
title Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
title_full Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
title_fullStr Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
title_full_unstemmed Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
title_short Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
title_sort classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4604617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26462565
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x
work_keys_str_mv AT lazarusclement classificationandprevalenceofspininabstractsofnonrandomizedstudiesevaluatinganintervention
AT haneefromana classificationandprevalenceofspininabstractsofnonrandomizedstudiesevaluatinganintervention
AT ravaudphilippe classificationandprevalenceofspininabstractsofnonrandomizedstudiesevaluatinganintervention
AT boutronisabelle classificationandprevalenceofspininabstractsofnonrandomizedstudiesevaluatinganintervention