Analyzing Spin in Abstracts of Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Insignificant Primary Endpoints.
bias
orthopaedics
randomized controlled trials
selective reporting bias
spin
Journal
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
ISSN: 1526-3231
Titre abrégé: Arthroscopy
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8506498
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
16 Jan 2020
16 Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
21
06
2019
revised:
12
12
2019
accepted:
13
12
2019
entrez:
20
1
2020
pubmed:
20
1
2020
medline:
20
1
2020
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Our primary aim of our study is to evaluate the prevalence of spin among abstracts in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints. This study was conducted in accordance with a previously written protocol publicly available via the Open Science Framework. PubMed (which includes Medline) was searched for RCTs in orthopaedic surgery. The articles that were identified were then uploaded to Rayyan, and the abstracts were screened for inclusion. To be included, a trial had to have randomized the patients for intervention, statistically compare multiple groups, and had a primary endpoint that was not significant. Odds ratios and summary statistics (frequencies and proportions) were then calculated for spin in the abstracts. Of the 780 articles retrieved from our search string, 250 articles met the inclusion criteria. Analysis resulted in 112/250 (44.80%; [95% CI, 38.64-50.96]) RCTs that containing spin within the abstract. Of the 112 RCTs, 52 (46.43%; [95% CI, 37.19-55.66]) had spin in the results, and 89 (79.46%; [95% CI, 71.98-86.95]) had spin in the conclusion of the abstract. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery was found to have the highest prevalence of spin (21/37, 56.76% [95% CI, 40.79%-72.72%]) while Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery had the lowest prevalence of spin (5/15, 33.33% [95% CI, 9.48%-57.19%]). No correlation was found between industry funding and increased odds of spin in the abstract (uOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.45-2.63). Discrepancies for our primary endpoint, prevalence of spin among abstracts, were analyzed with Gwet's AC1 inter-rater statistic and found to be 81% [95% CI, 0.75-0.87]. Spin was found in 44.8% of the abstracts within our sample of orthopaedic RCTs. Nonsignificant primary data were often represented to seem significant, many orthopaedic RCTs did not indicate primary endpoints, and orthopaedic RCTs infrequently reported trial registration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31954806
pii: S0749-8063(20)30038-4
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.12.025
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1443-1450.e1Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.