PURPOSE: To determine the prevalence of spin in systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses of clinical studies of the remplissage procedure. METHODS: Two reviewers independently performed a literature search of the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases using the search term "remplissage" in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The full article of each included SR was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Methodologic quality was assessed using the second version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). RESULTS: A total of 15 SRs (8 accompanied by meta-analyses; 6 Level III and 9 Level IV) were included. Overall, 13 SRs (86.7%) contained at least 1 form of spin, with 33 unique instances of spin recorded; the mean frequency was 2.2 ± 1.3 (range, 0-4). The most prevalent form of spin, present in 11 studies (73%), was type 9 ("conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias"). There were 14 uses of spin classified as misleading reporting, 16 classified as misleading interpretation, and 3 classified as inappropriate extrapolation. The mean 5-year impact factor of the publishing journals was 4.4 ± 0.9 (range, 0-6.1), the mean number of citations per SR was 33.3 ± 24.9 (range, 0-55), and the mean number of citations per month since publication was 0.68 ± 0.44 (range, 0-1.48). According to the AMSTAR 2 assessment, confidence in the results of the SRs was rated as critically low for 20% of reviews, low for 33.3%, and moderate for 46.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Most SRs of the remplissage procedure are affected by the presence of spin. Favorable reporting was observed in the absence of definite findings, as was minimization of drawbacks for certain populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.