Cargando…
The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis
BACKGROUND: Spin—the misrepresentation of a study’s actual results—has the potential to alter a clinician’s interpretation of the study’s findings and therefore could affect patient care. Studies have shown spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews from a variety of other medical dis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512415/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36162079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274744 |
_version_ | 1784797839576006656 |
---|---|
author | Khan, Ali Riley, Haley Ottwell, Ryan Arthur, Wade Greiner, Benjamin Shapiro, Ekaterina Wright, Drew Hartwell, Micah Chen, Suhao Miao, Zhuqi Chronister, Stacy Vassar, Matt |
author_facet | Khan, Ali Riley, Haley Ottwell, Ryan Arthur, Wade Greiner, Benjamin Shapiro, Ekaterina Wright, Drew Hartwell, Micah Chen, Suhao Miao, Zhuqi Chronister, Stacy Vassar, Matt |
author_sort | Khan, Ali |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Spin—the misrepresentation of a study’s actual results—has the potential to alter a clinician’s interpretation of the study’s findings and therefore could affect patient care. Studies have shown spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews from a variety of other medical disorders and specialties. AIMS: Our primary aim was to evaluate whether the nine most severe types of spin occurred in systematic review abstracts’ concerning diabetic neuropathy treatments. Secondly, we aimed to determine whether spin presence was associated with the methodological quality of a systematic review. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and Embase collected 1297 articles focused on diabetic neuropathy treatments, of which we included 114 systematic reviews for spin assessment. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin as defined by Yachitz et al. The methodological quality of a systematic review was determined by using the AMSTAR-2 instrument. All screening and data extraction were conducted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Since the final sample size of 114 was not sufficiently powered to do multivariable logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios which evaluated relationships between spin presence within abstracts and study characteristics. RESULTS: From the 114 articles reviewed, spin was present in 7.9% of the studies (9/114), with spin type 5: “conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite the high risk of bias in the included primary studies” as the most frequent in our study. Spin types 1, 2, 6, and 8 were not identified. No association was observed between the study characteristics and spin presence, including the methodological quality of a systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, spin is infrequently observed in abstracts of systematic reviews covering diabetic neuropathy treatments. When comparing our results to other fields of medicine, the field of diabetic neuropathy research publishes systematic reviews whose abstracts mostly portray the findings of the review’s full-text to reflect the results adequately. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9512415 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95124152022-09-27 The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis Khan, Ali Riley, Haley Ottwell, Ryan Arthur, Wade Greiner, Benjamin Shapiro, Ekaterina Wright, Drew Hartwell, Micah Chen, Suhao Miao, Zhuqi Chronister, Stacy Vassar, Matt PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: Spin—the misrepresentation of a study’s actual results—has the potential to alter a clinician’s interpretation of the study’s findings and therefore could affect patient care. Studies have shown spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews from a variety of other medical disorders and specialties. AIMS: Our primary aim was to evaluate whether the nine most severe types of spin occurred in systematic review abstracts’ concerning diabetic neuropathy treatments. Secondly, we aimed to determine whether spin presence was associated with the methodological quality of a systematic review. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE and Embase collected 1297 articles focused on diabetic neuropathy treatments, of which we included 114 systematic reviews for spin assessment. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin as defined by Yachitz et al. The methodological quality of a systematic review was determined by using the AMSTAR-2 instrument. All screening and data extraction were conducted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Since the final sample size of 114 was not sufficiently powered to do multivariable logistic regression, we calculated unadjusted odds ratios which evaluated relationships between spin presence within abstracts and study characteristics. RESULTS: From the 114 articles reviewed, spin was present in 7.9% of the studies (9/114), with spin type 5: “conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite the high risk of bias in the included primary studies” as the most frequent in our study. Spin types 1, 2, 6, and 8 were not identified. No association was observed between the study characteristics and spin presence, including the methodological quality of a systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, spin is infrequently observed in abstracts of systematic reviews covering diabetic neuropathy treatments. When comparing our results to other fields of medicine, the field of diabetic neuropathy research publishes systematic reviews whose abstracts mostly portray the findings of the review’s full-text to reflect the results adequately. Public Library of Science 2022-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9512415/ /pubmed/36162079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274744 Text en © 2022 Khan et al 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 author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Khan, Ali Riley, Haley Ottwell, Ryan Arthur, Wade Greiner, Benjamin Shapiro, Ekaterina Wright, Drew Hartwell, Micah Chen, Suhao Miao, Zhuqi Chronister, Stacy Vassar, Matt The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis |
title | The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis |
title_full | The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis |
title_fullStr | The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis |
title_short | The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis |
title_sort | presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: a cross-sectional analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9512415/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36162079 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274744 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khanali thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT rileyhaley thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT ottwellryan thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT arthurwade thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT greinerbenjamin thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT shapiroekaterina thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT wrightdrew thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT hartwellmicah thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT chensuhao thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT miaozhuqi thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT chronisterstacy thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT vassarmatt thepresenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT khanali presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT rileyhaley presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT ottwellryan presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT arthurwade presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT greinerbenjamin presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT shapiroekaterina presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT wrightdrew presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT hartwellmicah presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT chensuhao presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT miaozhuqi presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT chronisterstacy presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis AT vassarmatt presenceofspininsystematicreviewsfocusedondiabeticneuropathyacrosssectionalanalysis |