A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.
Bias
Biomarker
Misinterpretation
Misrepresentation
Ovarian cancer
Spin
Journal
Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2019
12 2019
Historique:
received:
29
10
2018
revised:
20
06
2019
accepted:
15
07
2019
pubmed:
23
7
2019
medline:
22
5
2020
entrez:
23
7
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In the scientific literature, "spin" refers to reporting practices that make the study findings appear more favorable than results justify. The practice of "spin" or misrepresentation and overinterpretation may lead to an imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of study results about performance of putative biomarkers. We aimed to classify spin (i.e., misrepresentation and overinterpretation of study findings) in recent clinical studies evaluating the performance of biomarkers in ovarian cancer. We searched PubMed systematically for all evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers published in 2015. Studies eligible for inclusion reported the clinical performance of prognostic, predictive, or diagnostic biomarkers. Our search identified 1,026 studies; 326 studies met all eligibility criteria, of which we evaluated the first 200 studies. Of these, 140 (70%) contained one or more form of spin in the title, abstract, or main-text conclusion, exaggerating the performance of the biomarker. The most frequent forms of spin identified were (1) other purposes of biomarker claimed not investigated (65; 32.5%); (2) mismatch between intended aim and conclusion (57; 28.5%); and (3) incorrect presentation of results (40; 20%). Our study provides evidence of misrepresentation and overinterpretation of finding in recent clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In the scientific literature, "spin" refers to reporting practices that make the study findings appear more favorable than results justify. The practice of "spin" or misrepresentation and overinterpretation may lead to an imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of study results about performance of putative biomarkers. We aimed to classify spin (i.e., misrepresentation and overinterpretation of study findings) in recent clinical studies evaluating the performance of biomarkers in ovarian cancer.
METHODS
We searched PubMed systematically for all evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers published in 2015. Studies eligible for inclusion reported the clinical performance of prognostic, predictive, or diagnostic biomarkers.
RESULTS
Our search identified 1,026 studies; 326 studies met all eligibility criteria, of which we evaluated the first 200 studies. Of these, 140 (70%) contained one or more form of spin in the title, abstract, or main-text conclusion, exaggerating the performance of the biomarker. The most frequent forms of spin identified were (1) other purposes of biomarker claimed not investigated (65; 32.5%); (2) mismatch between intended aim and conclusion (57; 28.5%); and (3) incorrect presentation of results (40; 20%).
CONCLUSION
Our study provides evidence of misrepresentation and overinterpretation of finding in recent clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31330251
pii: S0895-4356(18)30952-1
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.011
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Biomarkers, Tumor
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9-17Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.