Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention

Authors: Clément Lazarus, Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron

Published in: BMC Medical Research Methodology | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Spin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies.

Methods

In a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials).

Results

Among the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84 %) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53 %) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26 %), 25 (20 %), and 34 (27 %) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48 %) articles featured a high level of spin.

Conclusion

Abstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Fletcher RH, Black B. “Spin” in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. Med Law. 2007;26(3):511–25.PubMed
3.
Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–64.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Ochodo EA, De Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin”. Radiology. 2013;267(2):581–8.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Vera-Badillo FE, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(5):1238–44.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P: Impact of spin in the abstract of articles reporting results of Randomised Controlled Trials in the field of cancer, the SPIIN Randomised Controlled Trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2014 (in press).
7.
Dahabreh IJ, Kent DM. Can the learning health care system be educated with observational data? JAMA. 2014;312(2):129–30.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
10.
Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet. 2004;363(9422):1728–31.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2009;302(9):977–84.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparisons against baseline within randomised groups are often used and can be highly misleading. Trials. 2011;12(264):1745–6215.
14.
Hernandez AV, Pasupuleti V, Deshpande A, Thota P, Collins JA, Vidal JE. Deficient reporting and interpretation of non-inferiority randomized clinical trials in HIV patients: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:5.
15.
Al-Marzouki S, Roberts I, Marshall T, Evans S. The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. Contemp Clin Trials. 2005;26(3):331–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Chan KB, Man-Son-Hing M, Molnar FJ, Laupacis A. How well is the clinical importance of study results reported? An assessment of randomized controlled trials. CMAJ. 2001;165(9):1197–202.PubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Chan AW, Altman DG. Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):28.CrossRef
18.
19.
Linden A. Identifying spin in health management evaluations. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(6):1223–30.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Ito H, Yamanaka H, Hagiwara M, Furuuchi T, Matsumoto K, Kanai K, et al. Efficacy of tension-free vaginal tape compared with transobturator tape in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women: analysis of learning curve, perioperative changes of voiding function. BMC Urol. 2011;11(13):1471–2490.
21.
Macfadden W, Adler CM, Turkoz I, Haskins JT, Turner N, Alphs L. Adjunctive long-acting risperidone in patients with bipolar disorder who relapse frequently and have active mood symptoms. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11(171):11–171.
22.
Dekkers OM. On causation in therapeutic research: observational studies, randomised experiments and instrumental variable analysis. Prev Med. 2011;53(4–5):239–41.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Helbok R, Shaker E, Beer R, Chemelli A, Sojer M, Sohm F, et al. High dose erythropoietin increases brain tissue oxygen tension in severe vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage. BMC Neurol. 2012;12(32):1471–2377.
24.
Briones Claudett KH, Briones Claudett M, Chung Sang Wong M, Nuques Martinez A, Soto Espinoza R, Montalvo M, et al. Noninvasive mechanical ventilation with average volume assured pressure support (AVAPS) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and hypercapnic encephalopathy. BMC Pulm Med. 2013;13(12):1471–2466.
25.
Arnarsdottir L, Hjalmarsson C, Bokemark L, Andersson B. Comparative evaluation of treatment with low-dose aspirin plus dipyridamole versus aspirin only in patients with acute ischaemic stroke. BMC Neurol. 2012;12(67):1471–2377.
26.
Inatomi O, Bamba S, Shioya M, Mochizuki Y, Ban H, Tsujikawa T, et al. Threaded biliary inside stents are a safe and effective therapeutic option in cases of malignant hilar obstruction. BMC Gastroenterol. 2013;13(31):13–31.
27.
Andersson E, Ljotsson B, Hedman E, Kaldo V, Paxling B, Andersson G, et al. Internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder: a pilot study. BMC Psychiatry. 2011;11(125):11–125.
28.
Tiamkao S, Sawanyawisuth K, Chancharoen A. The efficacy of intravenous sodium valproate and phenytoin as the first-line treatment in status epilepticus: a comparison study. BMC Neurol. 2013;13(98):1471–2377.
29.
30.
31.
Shahar E, Shahar DJ. On the causal structure of information bias and confounding bias in randomized trials. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(6):1214–6.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Brown AW, Bohan Brown MM, Allison DB. Belief beyond the evidence: using the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity to show 2 practices that distort scientific evidence. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013;98(5):1298–308.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Blettner M, Heuer C, Razum O. Critical reading of epidemiological papers. A guide. Eur J Public Health. 2001;11(1):97–101.CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Li LC, Moja L, Romero A, Sayre EC, Grimshaw JM. Nonrandomized quality improvement intervention trials might overstate the strength of causal inference of their findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(9):959–66.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention
Authors
Clément Lazarus
Romana Haneef
Philippe Ravaud
Isabelle Boutron
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Research Methodology / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2288
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Medical Research Methodology 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Bayesian estimation of associations between identified longitudinal hormone subgroups and age at final menstrual period

Research article

Use of clustering analysis in randomized controlled trials in orthopaedic surgery

Research article

Moderate agreement between self-reported stroke and hospital-recorded stroke in two cohorts of Australian women: a validation study

Research article

Optimal cut-point definition in biomarkers: the case of censored failure time outcome

Debate

Clinical research and medical care: towards effective and complete integration

Research article

Strategy for recruitment and factors associated with motivation and satisfaction in a randomized trial with 210 healthy volunteers without financial compensation