Okonya Ochije, Lai Elaine, Ottwell Ryan, Khattab Mostafa, Arthur Wade, Khaimi Mahmoud A, Wright Drew N, Hartwell Micah, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research.
Kansas City University of Medicine and Biosciences, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Joplin, MO.
J Glaucoma. 2020 Dec 21:235-241. doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001735.
Spin - the misrepresentation of the study's actual findings - carries the ability to distort a reader's perception of a treatments' full benefits and risks. Recent studies have suggested that spin is common in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews focused on treatments for a variety of medical disorders. Therefore, our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to glaucoma treatments. We further assessed whether specific study characteristics were associated with spin, including the methodological quality of a study.
We used a cross-sectional study design searching MEDLINE and Embase databases all for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on glaucoma treatments. Each abstract was assessed for the nine most severe - severity determined by likelihood of distorting a reader's perception - types of spin that occur in systematic review abstracts. The screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate, masked fashion. The methodological quality of each review was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) instrument. To evaluate relationships between spin, AMSTAR-2 appraisals, and other study characteristics, we used unadjusted odds ratios and Fisher's exact test.
Only three of the 102 abstracts contained spin, with spin type 5 being the most prevalent. No abstracts contained spin types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8, and no association was found between the presence of spin in an abstract and any particular study characteristic. Using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal instrument, 35 (34.3%) of the studies received a methodological quality rating as high, 42 (41.2%) as moderate, 11 (10.8%) as low, and 14 (13.7%) as critically low.
We found that's pin is present in only a small proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of glaucoma. In comparison to studies in other fields of medicine, ophthalmology appears to be a leader in publishing systematic reviews and meta-analyses with low rates of spin occurring in the abstract.
歪曲研究的实际结果——即“误导性表述”——有能力扭曲读者对某种治疗方法全部益处和风险的认知。近期研究表明，在针对各种医学病症治疗的随机对照试验和系统评价的摘要中，误导性表述很常见。因此，我们的主要目标是评估青光眼治疗相关系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中误导性表述的发生率。我们还进一步评估了特定的研究特征是否与误导性表述相关，包括研究的方法学质量。
我们采用横断面研究设计，检索MEDLINE和Embase数据库中所有聚焦于青光眼治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析。每篇摘要都针对系统评价摘要中出现的9种最严重的——根据扭曲读者认知的可能性来确定严重程度——误导性表述类型进行评估。筛选和数据提取以双盲、重复的方式进行。使用“系统评价评估测量工具（AMSTAR-2）”对每项评价的方法学质量进行评估。为了评估误导性表述、AMSTAR-2评价以及其他研究特征之间的关系，我们使用了未调整的优势比和Fisher精确检验。
102篇摘要中只有3篇包含误导性表述，其中第5种误导性表述类型最为常见。没有摘要包含第1、2、3、4、6或8种误导性表述类型，并且在摘要中是否存在误导性表述与任何特定研究特征之间均未发现关联。使用AMSTAR-2质量评估工具，35项（34.3%）研究的方法学质量评级为高，42项（41.2%）为中等，11项（10.8%）为低，14项（13.7%）为极低。
我们发现，在涵盖青光眼治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析中，只有一小部分存在误导性表述。与医学其他领域的研究相比，眼科在发表系统评价和荟萃分析方面似乎处于领先地位，其摘要中出现误导性表述的比例较低。
