Cruz Laís Rueda, Braga Stephanie Fumagalli, Nadanovsky Paulo, Santos Ana Paula Pires Dos
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, School of Dentistry, Department of Community and Preventive Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro - UERJ, Institute of Social Medicine, Department of Epidemiology, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Braz Oral Res. 2024 Jul 12;38:e065. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2024.vol38.0065. eCollection 2024.
The aim of this review was to map the practice of spin in scientific publications in the dental field. After registering the review protocol (osf.io/kw5qv/), a search was conducted in MEDLINE via PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and OpenGrey databases in June 2023. Any study that evaluated the presence of spin in dentistry was eligible. Data were independently extracted in duplicate by two reviewers. After removing duplicates, 4888 records were screened and 38 were selected for full-text review. Thirteen studies met the eligibility criteria, all of which detected the presence of spin in the primary studies, with the prevalence of spin ranging from 30% to 86%. The most common types of spin assessed in systematic reviews were failure to mention adverse effects of interventions and to report the number of studies/patients contributing to the meta-analysis of main outcomes. In randomized controlled trials, there was a focus on statistically significant within-group and between-group comparisons for primary or secondary outcomes (in abstract results) and claiming equivalence/noninferiority/similarity for statistically nonsignificant results (in abstract conclusions). The practice of spin is widespread in dental scientific literature among different specialties, journals, and countries. Its impact, however, remains poorly investigated.
本综述的目的是梳理牙科领域科学出版物中的倾向性陈述行为。在注册综述方案（osf.io/kw5qv/）后，于2023年6月在通过PubMed的MEDLINE、CENTRAL、Embase、Scopus、LILACS、ClinicalTrials.gov和OpenGrey数据库中进行了检索。任何评估牙科领域倾向性陈述行为存在情况的研究均符合纳入标准。数据由两名评审员独立进行重复提取。去除重复记录后，筛选了4888条记录，其中38条被选出来进行全文评审。13项研究符合纳入标准，所有这些研究均在原始研究中检测到了倾向性陈述行为的存在，倾向性陈述行为的发生率在30%至86%之间。在系统评价中评估的最常见的倾向性陈述类型是未提及干预措施的不良反应以及未报告对主要结局进行荟萃分析的研究/患者数量。在随机对照试验中，重点在于（在摘要结果中）对主要或次要结局进行具有统计学意义的组内和组间比较，以及（在摘要结论中）对无统计学意义的结果宣称等效性/非劣效性/相似性。倾向性陈述行为在牙科科学文献中在不同专业、期刊和国家中广泛存在。然而，其影响仍未得到充分研究。
