Rucker Brayden, Umbarger Erich, Ottwell Ryan, Arthur Wade, Brame Lacy, Woodson Elena, Wright Drew N, Hartwell Micah, Khojasteh Jam, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research.
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Oklahoma State University Medical Center.
Otol Neurotol. 2021 May 10:1237-1244. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000003178.
The objective was to investigate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. We hypothesized that spin would be present in these articles and a significant relationship would exist between spin usage and extracted study characteristics.
Spin, the misrepresentation of study findings, can alter a clinician's interpretation of a study's results, potentially affecting patient care. Previous work demonstrates that spin is present in abstracts of randomized clinical trials.
Using a cross-sectional analysis, we conducted a systematic search using MEDLINE and Embase databases on June 2, 2020, for systematic reviews focused on tinnitus treatment. Investigators performed screening and data extraction in a masked, duplicate fashion.
Forty systematic reviews met inclusion criteria, and spin was identified in four of them. Spin in abstracts most frequently occurred when conclusions claimed the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies (n = 3). The other form of spin found was the conclusion claims safety based on nonstatistically significant results with a wide confidence interval (n = 1). There was no significant association between spin and any of our extracted study characteristics.
Spin was observed in 10% of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. Although this percentage may be small, we recommend that medical journals provide a more detailed framework for abstract structure and require the inclusion of risk of bias assessment results in abstracts to prevent the incorporation of spin.
目的是调查关于耳鸣治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中存在倾向性陈述的情况。我们假设这些文章中会存在倾向性陈述，并且倾向性陈述的使用与提取的研究特征之间会存在显著关系。
倾向性陈述，即对研究结果的歪曲，会改变临床医生对研究结果的解读，可能影响患者护理。先前的研究表明，随机临床试验的摘要中存在倾向性陈述。
采用横断面分析方法，于2020年6月2日使用MEDLINE和Embase数据库对聚焦耳鸣治疗的系统评价进行了系统检索。研究人员以盲法、重复的方式进行筛选和数据提取。
40篇系统评价符合纳入标准，其中4篇被发现存在倾向性陈述。摘要中的倾向性陈述最常出现在尽管原始研究存在高偏倚风险但结论仍声称实验性治疗具有有益效果的情况（n = 3）。发现的另一种倾向性陈述形式是基于具有宽置信区间的非统计学显著结果得出安全性结论（n = 1）。倾向性陈述与我们提取的任何研究特征之间均无显著关联。
在关于耳鸣治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析的摘要中，10%被观察到存在倾向性陈述。尽管这个比例可能较小，但我们建议医学期刊为摘要结构提供更详细的框架，并要求在摘要中纳入偏倚风险评估结果，以防止出现倾向性陈述。
