Nowlin Ross, Wirtz Alexis, Wenger David, Ottwell Ryan, Cook Courtney, Arthur Wade, Sallee Brigitte, Levin Jarad, Hartwell Micah, Wright Drew, Sealey Meghan, Zhu Lan, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, United States.
Department of Internal Medicine, University of Oklahoma College of Community Medicine, Tulsa, OK, United States.
JMIR Dermatol. 2022 Feb 24;5(1):e33996. doi: 10.2196/33996.
Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study's results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions.
The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.
We used a cross-sectional approach on June 2, 2020, to search the MEDLINE and Embase databases from their inception. To meet inclusion criteria, a study was required to be a systematic review or meta-analysis pertaining to the treatment of melanoma in human subjects, and reported in English. We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) definition of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. We conducted a powered bivariate linear regression and calculated odds ratios for each study characteristic.
A total of 200 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. We identified spin in 38% (n=76) of the abstracts. The most common type of spin found was type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention), occurring 40 times; the least common was type 2 (title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings), which was not present in any included abstracts. We found that abstracts pertaining to pharmacologic interventions were 3.84 times more likely to contain spin. The likelihood of an article containing spin has decreased annually (adjusted odds ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99). No significant correlation between funding source or other study characteristics and the presence of spin was identified.
We have found that spin is fairly common in the abstracts of systematic reviews of melanoma treatments, but the prevalence of spin in these abstracts has been declining from 1992-2020.
结果夸大是指对研究结果的错误表述，这可能导致对研究结果的误解或错误解读。此前在寻常痤疮治疗以及各种非皮肤病病症治疗的随机对照试验和系统评价中发现了结果夸大现象。
本研究的目的是量化黑色素瘤治疗系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中结果夸大的存在情况，并确定这些文章的任何相关次要特征。
我们采用横断面研究方法，于2020年6月2日检索MEDLINE和Embase数据库自建库以来的文献。为符合纳入标准，研究必须是关于人类黑色素瘤治疗的系统评价或荟萃分析，且以英文发表。我们采用系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目（PRISMA）对系统评价和荟萃分析的定义。数据以盲法、双人重复的方式提取。我们进行了有统计学效力的双变量线性回归，并计算了每项研究特征的比值比。
共有200项系统评价符合纳入标准。我们在38%（n = 76）的摘要中发现了结果夸大现象。发现的最常见的结果夸大类型是3型（选择性报告或过度强调疗效结果或偏向实验干预有益效果的分析），出现了40次；最不常见的是2型（标题声称或暗示实验干预有有益效果，但研究结果不支持），在所纳入的任何摘要中均未出现。我们发现，与药物干预相关的摘要包含结果夸大的可能性高3.84倍。文章包含结果夸大的可能性逐年下降（调整后的比值比为0.91，95%置信区间为0.84 - 0.99）。未发现资金来源或其他研究特征与结果夸大的存在之间存在显著相关性。
我们发现，结果夸大在黑色素瘤治疗系统评价的摘要中相当常见，但从1992年至2020年，这些摘要中结果夸大的发生率一直在下降。
