Muller Ryan, Ferreira Giovanni, Bejarano Geronimo, Gamble Andrew R, Kirk James, Sindone James, Zadro Joshua R
VA Connecticut Healthcare System PRIME Center, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Mar 21;30(2):84-90. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113033.
To compare the prevalence of 'spin', and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin.
Cross-sectional observational study.
Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database).
Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome.
Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts).
Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text.
119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found.
Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics.
比较健康与医学领域报告非显著结果的随机对照试验（RCT）的信息图表、摘要和全文中“夸大”情况及特定的夸大报告策略，并评估与夸大存在相关的因素。
横断面观察性研究。
2018年8月至2020年10月顶级五分位健康与医学期刊上的出版物（期刊引证报告数据库）。
主要结局为非显著结果的RCT的信息图表、摘要和全文。
夸大情况（信息图表、摘要和全文的结果与结论中存在的任何夸大及夸大情况）。
利益冲突、行业资助、试验注册、期刊影响因子、摘要中的夸大、全文中的夸大。
纳入了来自40种期刊的119项研究。三分之一（33%）的信息图表存在夸大情况。信息图表包含任何夸大情况的可能性并不高于摘要（33%对26%，比值比1.4；95%置信区间0.8至2.4）或全文（33%对26%，比值比1.4；95%置信区间0.8至2.4）。较高的期刊影响因子与信息图表和全文中夸大可能性略低相关，但与摘要无关。如果试验进行了前瞻性注册，信息图表而非摘要或全文包含夸大的可能性较小。未发现其他显著关联。
近三分之一的信息图表对主要结局为非显著结果的RCT的研究结果进行了夸大，但夸大的发生率并不高于摘要和全文。鉴于信息图表在传播研究结果方面越来越受欢迎，迫切需要改进信息图表中研究报告的质量。
