Department of Orthodontics, Academisch Centrum Tandheelkunde Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Gustav Mahlerlaan 3004, Amsterdam, 1081 LA, The Netherlands.
Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, 930 Campus Rd, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Syst Rev. 2023 Jun 20;12(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s13643-023-02269-3.
It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews.
This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1. Eligible reviews were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Prevalence proportions were sought for 3 outcomes as defined in the published protocol. Univariable logistic regression models were built to explore associations between the presence of spin in the abstract and a series of predictors. Odds ratios (OR) 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to quantify the strength of associations and their precision.
76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered (i.e., discussed, weighted etc.) potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin, i.e., 90% (36/40). Our explorative analyses found that compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68).
End users of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions have to be careful when interpreting results on adverse effects in the abstracts of these reviews, because they could be jeopardized by uncertainties such as not being reported and misleading reporting as a result of spin.
系统评价摘要必须透明地报告干预措施的有益和有害影响，以免误导读者。本横断面研究评估了正畸干预措施系统评价摘要中是否报告或考虑了干预措施的不良影响，以及在将摘要与这些综述中寻求和报告的内容进行比较时，是否存在对不良影响的歪曲。
本横断面研究（第 2 部分）使用了第 1 部分中相同的 98 项正畸干预系统评价样本。从 Cochrane 系统评价数据库和 5 种主要正畸期刊中检索符合条件的综述，检索时间为 2009 年 8 月 1 日至 2021 年 7 月 31 日。根据已发表方案，为 3 个结果寻求患病率比例。建立单变量逻辑回归模型以探讨摘要中存在歪曲与一系列预测因子之间的关联。使用优势比（OR）95%置信区间（95%CI）来量化关联的强度及其精度。
76.5%（75/98）的合格综述在摘要中报告或考虑（即讨论、加权等）了正畸干预措施的潜在不良影响，而这些综述摘要中对不良影响的歪曲比例为 40.8%（40/98）。误导性报告是歪曲的主要类别，即 90%（36/40）。我们的探索性分析发现，与 Cochrane 系统评价数据库相比，所有 5 种正畸期刊在正畸干预系统评价摘要中对不良影响的歪曲都有相似的可能性。歪曲的存在几率在抽样年份没有变化（OR：1.03，95%CI：0.9 至 1.16），也不取决于作者人数（OR：0.93，95%CI：0.71 至 1.21），或正畸干预类型（OR：1.1，95%CI：0.45 至 2.67），或是否报告了利益冲突（OR：0.74，95%CI：0.32 至 1.68）。
正畸系统评价摘要的使用者在解释这些综述中关于不良影响的结果时必须小心，因为由于歪曲等不确定性，结果可能会受到影响，例如未报告和由于歪曲导致的误导性报告。
