Evaluation of misrepresented findings in the abstracts of acute respiratory distress syndrome randomized trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints.
Journal
The clinical respiratory journal
ISSN: 1752-699X
Titre abrégé: Clin Respir J
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101315570
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 Oct 2020
20 Oct 2020
Historique:
entrez:
20
10
2020
pubmed:
21
10
2020
medline:
21
10
2020
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
We investigated the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to assess the presentation and frequency of misrepresented research findings, also known as spin. We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for studies published from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials with an ARDS intervention and a nonsignificant primary endpoint. Trial screening and data extraction was performed on all studies independently and in duplicate. The primary endpoint was to investigate the frequency and manifestation of spin in RCT abstracts. Our secondary endpoint was to investigate associations between funding source and spin. Our PubMed search returned 766 articles with 37 meeting inclusion criteria. Spin was present in 14 (14/37, 37.8%; 95% CI 22.5%-55.2%) abstracts. The most common manifestations of spin were claiming benefit based on a significant secondary endpoint (6/14, 42.9%), followed by the use of 'trend' statements, such as 'trend toward significance' (2/14, 14.3%; 95% CI 1.8%-42.8%). The most common spin in abstract conclusions was in the form of claiming benefit due to a significant secondary endpoint (3/4, 75%; 95% CI 19.4%-99.4%). Our secondary endpoint did not identify a significant difference in the prevalence of spin in publicly funded (5/19, 26.3%; 95% CI 9.1%-51.2%) compared to privately funded (4/12, 33.3%; 95% CI 9.9%-65.1%) studies (p>.05). RCTs of ARDS interventions with nonsignificant primary endpoints often included spin in the abstract. Spin in the abstract may influence clinician appraisal and interpretation of diagnostic or treatment modalities.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
287-292Informations de copyright
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Références
ARDS | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/ards. Accessed August 6, 2019.
Rubenfeld GD. Confronting the frustrations of negative clinical trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(Suppl 1):S58-S63.
Sjoding MW, Cooke CR, Iwashyna TJ, Hofer TP. Acute respiratory distress syndrome measurement error. Potential effect on clinical study results. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016;13(7):1123-1128.
Mlinarić A, Horvat M, Šupak SV. Dealing with the positive publication bias: why you should really publish your negative results. Biochem Med. 2017;27(3):030201.
Boutron I, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115(11):2613-2619.
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):2058-2064.
McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, van Es N, Leeflang MMG, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM. Overinterpretation of research findings: Evidence of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2017;63(8):1353-1362.
Ghannad M, Olsen M, Boutron I, Bossuyt PM. A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;116:9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.011.
Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. “Spin” in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review. PLoS Biol. 2017;15(9):e2002173.
Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(12):881-884.
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4120-4126.
Cole Wayant MV. Central protocol for assessing spin in the biomedical literature. 2018. https://osf.io/eu5t2/.
Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):210.
Horton R. The rhetoric of research. BMJ. 1995;310(6985):985-987.
Gewandter JS, McKeown A, McDermott MP, et al. Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review. J Pain. 2015;16(1):3-10.
Cooper CM, Gray HM, Ross AE, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials. Laryngoscope. 2019;129:2036-2040. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27750
Fleming PS. Evidence of spin in clinical trials in the surgical literature. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(19):385.
Austin J, Smith C, Natarajan K, Som M, Wayant C, Vassar M. Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional review. Clin Obes. 2019;9(2):e12292.
Lockyer S, Hodgson R, Dumville JC, Cullum N. “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes. Trials. 2013;14(1):371.
Kinder NC, Weaver MD, Wayant C, Vassar M. Presence of “spin”in the abstracts and titles of anaesthesiology randomised controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(1):e13-e14.
Latronico N, Metelli M, Turin M, Piva S, Rasulo FA, Minelli C. Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39(8):1386-1395.
Latronico N, Botteri M, Minelli C, Zanotti C, Bertolini G, Candiani A. Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials in the intensive care literature. A systematic analysis of papers published in Intensive Care Medicine over 26 years. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28(9):1316-1323.
Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Nietzke F. Family physicians’ use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14(6):437-442.
Marcelo A, Gavino A, Isip-Tan IT, et al. A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital. Evid Based Med. 2013;18(2):48-53.
Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Medicine. 2012;9(9):e1001308.
Haneef R, Lazarus C, Ravaud P, Yavchitz A, Boutron I. Interpretation of results of studies evaluating an intervention highlighted in Google Health News: a cross-sectional study of news. PLoS One. 2015;10(10):e0140889.
Kiernan V. Diffusion of news about research. Sci Commun. 2003;25(1):3-13.
Grady EC, Roise A, Barr D, et al. Defining scholarly activity in graduate medical education. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(4):558-561.
Scallan S, Locke R, Eksteen D, Caesar S. The benefits of appraisal: a critical (re)view of the literature. Educ Prim Care. 2016;27(2):94-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2016.1142772
Mugweni K, Kibble S, Conlon M. Benefits of appraisal as perceived by general practitioners. Educ Prim Care. 2011;22(6):393-398.
Ekmekci PE. An increasing problem in publication ethics: publication bias and editors’ role in avoiding it. Med Health Care Philos. 2017;20(2):171-178.
Hwang TJ. Stock market returns and clinical trial results of investigational compounds: an event study analysis of large biopharmaceutical companies. PLoS One. 2013;8(8):e71966.
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, et al. CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine. 2008;5(1):e20.
Royle PL, Waugh NR. Making literature searches easier: a rapid and sensitive search filter for retrieving randomized controlled trials from PubMed. Diabet Med. 2007;3(3):308-311.