Reddy Arjun K, Lulkovich Kaley, Ottwell Ryan, Arthur Wade, Bowers Aaron, Al-Rifai Shafiq, Cook Katherine, Wright Drew N, Hartwell Micah, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Sex Med. 2020 Dec 5;9(1):100284. doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.10.012.
It is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses-and particularly abstracts of such articles-for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts. In this study, we evaluated the use of spin (ie, the misreporting of study findings by overstating or selectively reporting efficacy results, minimizing harms, or making unwarranted clinical recommendations) in the abstracts of systematic reviews on erectile dysfunction.
A search strategy was developed using the MEDLINE and Embase databases to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for erectile dysfunction. 2 investigators independently screened the titles and abstracts from the reviews for study inclusion. Investigators analyzed the included systematic reviews for 9 of the most severe types of spin using a previously developed classification scheme and rated them for methodological quality using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate.
Our search returned 2,224 articles, of which 102 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. A total of 31.4% (32/102) of systematic reviews contained spin. 8 types of spin were identified in our sample. Type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes) and type 5 (conclusion claims beneficial effect despite high risk of bias) were the most common types of spin, each occurring in 10.8% (11/102) of abstracts. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the extracted study characteristics or methodological quality.
Spin was present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering erectile dysfunction treatments. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on erectile dysfunction treatment. Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Sex Med 2020;9:100284.
据预测，到2025年全球约有3.22亿男性会受到勃起功能障碍的影响。鉴于该主题的文献数量众多，医生们常常借助系统评价和荟萃分析——尤其是此类文章的摘要——来获取临床指导。因此，确保摘要中不出现对研究结果的错误表述至关重要。在本研究中，我们评估了关于勃起功能障碍的系统评价摘要中是否存在“误导性陈述”（即通过夸大或选择性报告疗效结果、淡化危害或提出无根据的临床建议来错误报告研究结果）。
利用MEDLINE和Embase数据库制定检索策略，以检索聚焦于勃起功能障碍治疗的系统评价。两名研究者独立筛选这些评价的标题和摘要以确定纳入研究。研究者使用先前制定的分类方案，对纳入的系统评价进行9种最严重类型的误导性陈述分析，并采用修订后的评估系统评价的测量工具（AMSTAR）以盲法、重复方式对其方法学质量进行评分。每个评价的研究特征也进行了重复提取。
我们的检索共返回2224篇文章，其中102篇系统评价和荟萃分析纳入最终分析。总共31.4%（32/102）的系统评价存在误导性陈述。在我们的样本中识别出8种类型的误导性陈述。第3类（选择性报告或过度强调疗效结果）和第5类（尽管存在高偏倚风险但结论声称有有益效果）是最常见的误导性陈述类型，每种类型在10.8%（11/102）的摘要中出现。误导性陈述的存在与提取的研究特征或方法学质量之间无显著关联。
关于勃起功能障碍治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析中存在误导性陈述。应采取措施提高勃起功能障碍治疗摘要的报告质量。雷迪·A·K、卢尔科维奇·K、奥特韦尔·R等。聚焦勃起功能障碍治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中的误导性陈述评估：一项横断面分析。性医学2020；9：100284。
