Heigle Benjamin, Kee Micah, Ottwell Ryan, Arthur Wade, Brame Lacy, Wright Drew N, Hartwell Micah, Khojasteh Jam, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2021 Mar 18:34894211000493. doi: 10.1177/00034894211000493.
To identify, quantify, and characterize the presence of spin-specific strategies leading to misrepresentation of study results-in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Ménière's disease treatment.
Using a cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase on May 28, 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on Ménière's disease treatment. Returned searches were screened, and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion.
Our sample included 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Of the 36 included studies, 22 (61.1%) abstracts contained spin while 14 (38.9%) did not. The most common spin types were selective reporting of benefit (10/36, 27.8%) or harm (8/36, 22.2%). Other types of spin occurred when findings were extrapolated to the global improvement of the disease (5/36, 13.9%), beneficial effects were reported with high risk of bias in primary studies (3/36, 8.3%), and when beneficial effects were extrapolated to an entire class of interventions (1/36, 2.8%). No instances of other spin types occurred. Abstracts containing spin were substantively associated with studies of critically low methodological quality compared with studies with low and moderate quality. No studies had a methodological rating of high quality. No associations were observed between spin and intervention types, journal recommendation of adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or funding. We found a negative correlation ( = -.31) between abstract word limit and presence of spin.
Our study highlights that spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of Ménière's disease is common, and it further enhances the discussion surrounding spin in abstracts of scientific research. Spin in an abstract does not discredit a study's findings; however, its occurrence should be eliminated.
识别、量化并描述在梅尼埃病治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中导致研究结果被歪曲的特定倾向性策略的存在情况。
采用横断面设计，于2020年5月28日检索MEDLINE和Embase，查找聚焦于梅尼埃病治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析。对检索结果进行筛选，并以盲法、双人重复的方式提取数据。
我们的样本包括36项系统评价和荟萃分析。在这36项纳入研究中，22篇（61.1%）摘要存在倾向性表述，而14篇（38.9%）没有。最常见的倾向性类型是选择性报告益处（10/36，27.8%）或危害（8/36，22.2%）。当研究结果被外推至疾病的整体改善情况时出现其他类型的倾向性（5/36，13.9%），在初级研究存在高偏倚风险时报告有益效果（3/36，8.3%），以及当有益效果被外推至整个干预类别时（1/36，2.8%）。未出现其他倾向性类型的情况。与低质量和中等质量的研究相比，包含倾向性表述的摘要与方法学质量极低的研究存在实质性关联。没有研究的方法学评级为高质量。在倾向性与干预类型、遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目的期刊推荐或资金来源之间未观察到关联。我们发现摘要字数限制与倾向性表述的存在之间存在负相关（r = -0.31）。
我们的研究强调，梅尼埃病系统评价摘要中的倾向性表述很常见，这进一步引发了围绕科研摘要中倾向性表述的讨论。摘要中的倾向性表述并不会使研究结果不可信；然而，应消除其出现的情况。
