Cole Wesley Tanner, Wittl Peter, Arthur Wade, Ottwell Ryan, Greiner Benjamin, Koshy Gershon, Chronister Justin, Hartwell Micah, Staheli Jonathan, Wright Drew N, Sealey Meghan, Zhu Lan, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, TX, USA.
J Osteopath Med. 2021 Jun 30:723-731. doi: 10.1515/jom-2021-0085.
"Spin" is a form of bias that involves highlighting study results in a way that presents the conclusions about benefit or efficacy beyond the scope of the data. Spin in the abstract of published studies has the potential to affect patient care, making investigations about its presence and prevalence important for readers.
To evaluate the most severe types of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.
Using a cross sectional study design, the authors searched MEDLINE and Embase with the terms "percutaneous coronary intervention," "percutaneous coronary revascularization," "PCI," "systematic review," "meta analysis," and "meta-analysis." To be considered for this study, the article must have (1) focused on PCI; (2) had either a systematic review or metaanalysis study design; (3) been conducted on human subjects; and (4) been available in English. Reviews were excluded if these criteria were not met. Each included article was assessed for the nine most severe types of spin as defined in a previously published article, as well as other study characteristics (type of intervention being compared, date the review was received, adherence of systematic review and/or meta-analysis to Preferred Reporting for Systematic Reviews or Metanalyses (PRISMA) guidelines, requirement of PRISMA guidelines by the publishing journal, the publishing journal's five-year impact factor, and sources of funding).
Our database search retrieved 7,038 records; 2,190 duplicates were removed. Initial title and abstract screening led to the exclusion of 4,367 records, and an additional 281 records were excluded during full text screening. An arbitrary limit of 200 articles was applied for this analysis; five additional articles were excluded for ineligible study design, so 195 were included in our final analysis. Spin was present in the abstracts of 43 studies from that pool (22.1%). Spin type 3--occurred most frequently (29; 14.8%). The presence of spin was not associated with any of the extracted study characteristics.
Our data showed that spin occurred in more than one in every five systematic reviews or metaanalyses of PCI. Spin has the potential to distort a reader's ability to translate the true findings of a study; therefore, efforts are needed to prevent spin from appearing in article summaries.
“夸大宣传”是一种偏倚形式，涉及以超出数据范围呈现关于益处或疗效结论的方式突出研究结果。已发表研究摘要中的夸大宣传有可能影响患者护理，因此对其存在情况和普遍程度进行调查对读者而言十分重要。
评估聚焦经皮冠状动脉介入治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中最严重的夸大宣传类型。
采用横断面研究设计，作者使用“经皮冠状动脉介入治疗”“经皮冠状动脉血运重建”“PCI”“系统评价”“荟萃分析”等术语检索了MEDLINE和Embase数据库。要纳入本研究，文章必须满足以下条件：（1）聚焦PCI；（2）采用系统评价或荟萃分析研究设计；（3）以人类为研究对象；（4）有英文版本。若不满足这些标准，则排除相关综述。每篇纳入文章均根据先前发表文章中定义的九种最严重夸大宣传类型以及其他研究特征（所比较的干预类型、收到综述的日期、系统评价和/或荟萃分析对系统评价和荟萃分析优先报告规范（PRISMA）指南的遵循情况、发表期刊对PRISMA指南的要求、发表期刊的五年影响因子以及资金来源）进行评估。
我们的数据库检索共获得7038条记录；去除2190条重复记录。初步的标题和摘要筛选导致排除4367条记录，全文筛选期间又排除281条记录。本分析采用了200篇文章的任意限制；另外5篇文章因研究设计不符合要求而被排除，因此最终纳入分析的有195篇。该组中有43项研究的摘要存在夸大宣传（22.1%）。3型夸大宣传出现得最为频繁（29次；14.8%）。夸大宣传的存在与任何提取的研究特征均无关联。
我们的数据表明，在每五项PCI系统评价或荟萃分析中，就有超过一项存在夸大宣传。夸大宣传有可能扭曲读者理解研究真实结果的能力；因此，需要努力防止夸大宣传出现在文章摘要中。
