Khaled Karim, Alderhali Raed, Helbing Jordan, Alzobi Osama, Zikria Bashir
Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia.
Johns Hopkins Medicine, Bethesda, USA.
Int Orthop. 2025 Mar;49(3):697-704. doi: 10.1007/s00264-025-06414-6. Epub 2025 Jan 24.
This study aimed to assess the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing biceps tenodesis and tenotomy outcomes and to explore associations between spin and specific study characteristics.
Using Web of Science and PubMed databases, systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing outcomes of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy were identified. Abstracts were evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin as described by Yavchitz et al. and appraised using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Study characteristics were extracted, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines,funding status, and impact metrics such as journal impact factor, total number of citations, and average annual citations.
A total of 16 studies were included, with spin detected in 81.3% of the abstracts. Type three spin was the most frequent (56.3%), followed by types six (43.8%), five (37.5%), nine (25.0%), two (12.5%), and four (6.3%). Spin types one, seven, and eight were not observed. AMSTAR 2 appraised 75% of the studies as 'low' quality, and 25% as 'critically low' quality. All studies had at least one critical flaw, with item 15 (investigation of publication bias) being the most frequent (93.8%). A strong positive correlation was found between AMSTAR 2 scores and citation counts (r = 0.821, p < 0.001). Studies with a higher number of spin incidents were significantly more likely to have an associated letter to the editor (p = 0.0043).
Severe types of spin were prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing biceps tenodesis and tenotomy. Data analysis suggests that abstracts with a higher incidence of spin tend to attract more scrutiny from the academic community. These findings highlight the need to enhance reporting standards.
本研究旨在评估比较肱二头肌肌腱固定术和肌腱切断术结果的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中是否存在倾向性，并探讨倾向性与特定研究特征之间的关联。
利用科学网和PubMed数据库，识别比较肱二头肌肌腱固定术和肌腱切断术结果的系统评价和荟萃分析。按照Yavchitz等人描述的九种最严重的倾向性类型对摘要进行评估，并使用AMSTAR 2（一种评估系统评价的测量工具）进行评价。提取研究特征，包括对PRISMA指南的遵循情况、资金状况以及诸如期刊影响因子、总被引次数和年均被引次数等影响指标。
共纳入16项研究，81.3%的摘要中检测到倾向性。第三种倾向性类型最为常见（56.3%），其次是第六种（43.8%）、第五种（37.5%）、第九种（25.0%）、第二种（12.5%）和第四种（6.3%）。未观察到第一种、第七种和第八种倾向性类型。AMSTAR 2将75%的研究评定为“低”质量，25%评定为“极低”质量。所有研究至少存在一个关键缺陷，其中第15项（发表偏倚调查）最为常见（93.8%）。发现AMSTAR 2评分与被引次数之间存在强正相关（r = 0.821，p < 0.001）。倾向性事件数量较多的研究更有可能有一封致编辑的信（p = 0.0043）。
在比较肱二头肌肌腱固定术和肌腱切断术的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中，严重的倾向性类型普遍存在。数据分析表明，倾向性发生率较高的摘要往往会受到学术界更多的审视。这些发现凸显了提高报告标准的必要性。
