Amsterdam UMC, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France.
Amsterdam UMC, Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Université de Paris, CRESS, INSERM, INRA, F-75004 Paris, France.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Dec;116:9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.011. Epub 2019 Jul 19.
In the scientific literature, "spin" refers to reporting practices that make the study findings appear more favorable than results justify. The practice of "spin" or misrepresentation and overinterpretation may lead to an imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of study results about performance of putative biomarkers. We aimed to classify spin (i.e., misrepresentation and overinterpretation of study findings) in recent clinical studies evaluating the performance of biomarkers in ovarian cancer.
We searched PubMed systematically for all evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers published in 2015. Studies eligible for inclusion reported the clinical performance of prognostic, predictive, or diagnostic biomarkers.
Our search identified 1,026 studies; 326 studies met all eligibility criteria, of which we evaluated the first 200 studies. Of these, 140 (70%) contained one or more form of spin in the title, abstract, or main-text conclusion, exaggerating the performance of the biomarker. The most frequent forms of spin identified were (1) other purposes of biomarker claimed not investigated (65; 32.5%); (2) mismatch between intended aim and conclusion (57; 28.5%); and (3) incorrect presentation of results (40; 20%).
Our study provides evidence of misrepresentation and overinterpretation of finding in recent clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.
在科学文献中，“spin”是指报告做法，使研究结果看起来比实际结果更有利。“spin”或错误表述和过度解释的做法可能导致对假定生物标志物性能的研究结果的解释出现不平衡和不合理的乐观。我们旨在对最近评估卵巢癌生物标志物性能的临床研究中的“spin”（即研究结果的错误表述和过度解释）进行分类。
我们系统地在 PubMed 上搜索了 2015 年发表的所有评估卵巢癌生物标志物的研究。符合纳入标准的研究报告了预后、预测或诊断生物标志物的临床性能。
我们的搜索确定了 1026 项研究；326 项研究符合所有纳入标准，我们评估了前 200 项研究。其中，140 项（70%）在标题、摘要或正文结论中存在一种或多种形式的“spin”，夸大了生物标志物的性能。发现的最常见的“spin”形式是：（1）声称未研究生物标志物的其他用途（65 项；32.5%）；（2）预期目的与结论不匹配（57 项；28.5%）；和（3）结果呈现不正确（40 项；20%）。
我们的研究提供了证据表明，最近对卵巢癌生物标志物的临床评估中存在错误表述和过度解释研究结果的情况。
