Cargando…

Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation

OBJECTIVE: Abstracts of scientific reports are sometimes criticized for exaggerating significant results when compared to the corresponding full texts. Such abstracts can mislead the readers. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of overstatements in abstract conclusions in psychiatry trials. METH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shinohara, Kiyomi, Suganuma, Aya M., Imai, Hissei, Takeshima, Nozomi, Hayasaka, Yu, Furukawa, Toshi A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28902885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184786
_version_ 1783263674764361728
author Shinohara, Kiyomi
Suganuma, Aya M.
Imai, Hissei
Takeshima, Nozomi
Hayasaka, Yu
Furukawa, Toshi A.
author_facet Shinohara, Kiyomi
Suganuma, Aya M.
Imai, Hissei
Takeshima, Nozomi
Hayasaka, Yu
Furukawa, Toshi A.
author_sort Shinohara, Kiyomi
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Abstracts of scientific reports are sometimes criticized for exaggerating significant results when compared to the corresponding full texts. Such abstracts can mislead the readers. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of overstatements in abstract conclusions in psychiatry trials. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials published in 2014 that explicitly claimed effectiveness of any intervention for mental disorders in their abstract conclusion, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Claims of effectiveness in abstract conclusion were categorized into three types: superiority (stating superiority of intervention to control), limited superiority (intervention has limited superiority), and equal efficactiveness (claiming equal effectiveness of intervention with standard treatment control), and full text results into three types: significant (all primary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of the intervention), mixed (primary outcomes included both significant and non-significant results), or all results non-significant. By comparing these classifications, we assessed whether each abstract was overstated. Our primary outcome was the proportion of overstated abstract conclusions. RESULTS: We identified and included 60 relevant trials. 20 out of 60 studies (33.3%) showed overstatements. Nine reports reported only significant results although none of their primary outcomes were significant. Large sample size (>300) and publication in high impact factor (IF>10) journals were associated with low occurrence of overstatements. CONCLUSIONS: We found that one in three psychiatry studies claiming effectiveness in their abstract conclusion, either superior to control or equal to standard treatment, for any mental disorders were overstated in comparison with the full text results. Readers of the psychiatry literature are advised to scrutinize the full text results regardless of the claims in the abstract. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000018668)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5597227
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55972272017-09-15 Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation Shinohara, Kiyomi Suganuma, Aya M. Imai, Hissei Takeshima, Nozomi Hayasaka, Yu Furukawa, Toshi A. PLoS One Research Article OBJECTIVE: Abstracts of scientific reports are sometimes criticized for exaggerating significant results when compared to the corresponding full texts. Such abstracts can mislead the readers. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of overstatements in abstract conclusions in psychiatry trials. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials published in 2014 that explicitly claimed effectiveness of any intervention for mental disorders in their abstract conclusion, using the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials. Claims of effectiveness in abstract conclusion were categorized into three types: superiority (stating superiority of intervention to control), limited superiority (intervention has limited superiority), and equal efficactiveness (claiming equal effectiveness of intervention with standard treatment control), and full text results into three types: significant (all primary outcomes were statistically significant in favor of the intervention), mixed (primary outcomes included both significant and non-significant results), or all results non-significant. By comparing these classifications, we assessed whether each abstract was overstated. Our primary outcome was the proportion of overstated abstract conclusions. RESULTS: We identified and included 60 relevant trials. 20 out of 60 studies (33.3%) showed overstatements. Nine reports reported only significant results although none of their primary outcomes were significant. Large sample size (>300) and publication in high impact factor (IF>10) journals were associated with low occurrence of overstatements. CONCLUSIONS: We found that one in three psychiatry studies claiming effectiveness in their abstract conclusion, either superior to control or equal to standard treatment, for any mental disorders were overstated in comparison with the full text results. Readers of the psychiatry literature are advised to scrutinize the full text results regardless of the claims in the abstract. TRIAL REGISTRATION: University hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000018668) Public Library of Science 2017-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5597227/ /pubmed/28902885 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184786 Text en © 2017 Shinohara et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shinohara, Kiyomi
Suganuma, Aya M.
Imai, Hissei
Takeshima, Nozomi
Hayasaka, Yu
Furukawa, Toshi A.
Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation
title Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation
title_full Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation
title_fullStr Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation
title_full_unstemmed Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation
title_short Overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: A meta-epidemiological investigation
title_sort overstatements in abstract conclusions claiming effectiveness of interventions in psychiatry: a meta-epidemiological investigation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5597227/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28902885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184786
work_keys_str_mv AT shinoharakiyomi overstatementsinabstractconclusionsclaimingeffectivenessofinterventionsinpsychiatryametaepidemiologicalinvestigation
AT suganumaayam overstatementsinabstractconclusionsclaimingeffectivenessofinterventionsinpsychiatryametaepidemiologicalinvestigation
AT imaihissei overstatementsinabstractconclusionsclaimingeffectivenessofinterventionsinpsychiatryametaepidemiologicalinvestigation
AT takeshimanozomi overstatementsinabstractconclusionsclaimingeffectivenessofinterventionsinpsychiatryametaepidemiologicalinvestigation
AT hayasakayu overstatementsinabstractconclusionsclaimingeffectivenessofinterventionsinpsychiatryametaepidemiologicalinvestigation
AT furukawatoshia overstatementsinabstractconclusionsclaimingeffectivenessofinterventionsinpsychiatryametaepidemiologicalinvestigation