Foster Brian K, Hayes Daniel S, Constantino Jesse, Garsed Jessica A, Baylor Jessica L, Grandizio Louis C
Geisinger Musculoskeletal Institute, Danville, PA, USA.
Hand (N Y). 2024 May;19(3):456-463. doi: 10.1177/15589447221120848. Epub 2022 Sep 21.
Spin is a form of reporting bias which suggests a treatment is beneficial despite a statistically nonsignificant difference in outcomes. Our purpose was to define the prevalence of spin within the abstracts of distal radius fracture (DRF) systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MA). We also sought to identify article characteristics that were more likely to contain spin.
We performed a SR of multiple databases to identify DRF SRs and MAs. Articles were screened and analyzed by 3 reviewers. We recorded article and journal characteristics including adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, funding disclosures, methodologic quality (AMSTAR 2 instrument), impact factor, and country of origin. Presence of the 9 most severe types of spin in abstracts were recorded. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to analyze the association between article characteristics and the presence of spin.
A total of 112 articles were included. Spin was present in 46% of abstracts, with type 1 spin ("conclusions not supported by findings") most frequent (19%). Spin was present in 43% of abstracts in PRISMA-adhering journals compared to 49% in journals that did not (OR = 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.37-1.68). For articles originating from China, spin was present in 61% of abstracts compared to 39% of abstracts from other countries (OR = 2.55, 95% CI = 1.13-5.75).
In addition to low article quality, there are high rates of spin within the abstracts of SRs and MAs related to treatment of DRF. Articles within journals that adhere to PRISMA do not appear to contain less spin.
倾向性报道是一种报告偏倚形式，它表明尽管在结果上没有统计学上的显著差异，但某种治疗方法是有益的。我们的目的是确定桡骨远端骨折（DRF）系统评价（SRs）和荟萃分析（MAs）摘要中倾向性报道的发生率。我们还试图确定更有可能包含倾向性报道的文章特征。
我们对多个数据库进行了系统评价，以识别DRF的SRs和MAs。由3名评审员对文章进行筛选和分析。我们记录了文章和期刊的特征，包括是否遵循系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）指南、资金披露、方法学质量（AMSTAR 2工具）、影响因子和原产国。记录摘要中9种最严重的倾向性报道类型。计算未调整的比值比（ORs），以分析文章特征与倾向性报道存在之间的关联。
共纳入112篇文章。46%的摘要中存在倾向性报道，其中1型倾向性报道（“结论未得到研究结果支持”）最为常见（19%）。遵循PRISMA的期刊中，43%的摘要存在倾向性报道，而未遵循的期刊中这一比例为49%（OR = 0.79，95%置信区间[CI] = 0.37 - 1.68）。对于来自中国的文章，61%的摘要存在倾向性报道，而其他国家的文章这一比例为39%（OR = 2.55，95% CI = 1.13 - 5.75）。
除了文章质量较低外，与DRF治疗相关的SRs和MAs摘要中倾向性报道的发生率也很高。遵循PRISMA的期刊中的文章似乎并没有更少的倾向性报道。
