Université Paris Cité, INSERM, INRAE, CNAM, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), F-75004, Paris, France.
Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
BMJ Open. 2022 Apr 8;12(4):e056503. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-056503.
To assess the impact on readers' interpretation of the results reported in an abstract for a hypothetical clinical trial with (1) a statistically significant result (SSR), (2) spin, (3) both an SSR and spin compared with (4) no spin and no SSR.
Health students and professionals from universities and health institutions in France and the UK.
Participants completed an online questionnaire using Likert scales and free text, after reading one of the four versions of an abstract about a hypothetical randomised trial evaluating 'Naranex' and 'Bulofil' (two hypothetical drugs) for chronic low back pain. The abstracts differed in (1) reported result of 'mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI 0.08 to 2.54, p= 0.04)' or 'mean difference of 1.31 points (95% CI -0.08 to 2.70, p= 0.06)' and (2) presence or absence of spin. The effect size for the trial's primary outcome (pain disability score) was the same in each abstract, slightly in favour of Naranex.
The reader's interpretation of the trial's results, based on their answer (1, disagree; 4, neutral; 7, agree) to the following statement: 'About the main findings of the study, what is your opinion about the following statement: 'Naranex is better than Bulofil'?'
Two hundred and ninety-seven of the 404 people randomised to receive one of the four abstracts completed the study. Respondents were more likely to favour Narenex when the abstract reported an SSR without spin, a statistically significant result with spin, a non-statistically significant result with spin, compared with when it reported a non-SSR without spin.
Statistical significance appears to have influenced readers' perception whatever the level of spin, while spin influenced readers' perception when the results were not statistically significant but did not appear to have an impact when results were statistically significant.
评估(1)具有统计学意义的结果(SSR)、(2) 倾向性、(3)SSR 和倾向性与(4)无倾向性且无 SSR 的情况下,对报告的临床试验摘要结果的读者解释产生的影响。
来自法国和英国大学和医疗机构的卫生专业学生和专业人员。
参与者在阅读了关于评价“Naranex”和“Bulofil”(两种假设药物)治疗慢性下背痛的随机试验的四个版本的摘要之一后,通过李克特量表和自由文本完成了在线问卷。摘要在(1)报告的结果为“1.31 分的平均差异(95%CI 0.08 至 2.54,p=0.04)”或“1.31 分的平均差异(95%CI -0.08 至 2.70,p=0.06)”和(2)存在或不存在倾向性方面存在差异。试验主要结局(疼痛残疾评分)的效应大小在每个摘要中相同,略微有利于 Naranex。
根据他们对以下陈述的回答(1,不同意;4,中立;7,同意),读者对试验结果的解释,“关于研究的主要发现,您对以下陈述有何看法:'Naranex 优于 Bulofil'?”
随机分配到接收四个摘要之一的 404 人中,有 297 人完成了研究。当摘要报告无倾向性且无统计学意义的结果、有倾向性且具有统计学意义的结果、有倾向性但无统计学意义的结果时,与报告无 SSR 且无倾向性的摘要相比,受访者更倾向于支持 Naranex。
无论倾向性程度如何,统计学意义似乎都影响了读者的看法,而当结果无统计学意义时,倾向性会影响读者的看法,但当结果具有统计学意义时,倾向性似乎没有影响。