Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma.
Journal
Journal of glaucoma
ISSN: 1536-481X
Titre abrégé: J Glaucoma
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9300903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Dec 2020
21 Dec 2020
Historique:
entrez:
22
12
2020
pubmed:
23
12
2020
medline:
23
12
2020
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Spin - the misrepresentation of the study's actual findings - carries the ability to distort a reader's perception of a treatments' full benefits and risks. Recent studies have suggested that spin is common in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews focused on treatments for a variety of medical disorders. Therefore, our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to glaucoma treatments. We further assessed whether specific study characteristics were associated with spin, including the methodological quality of a study. We used a cross-sectional study design searching MEDLINE and Embase databases all for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on glaucoma treatments. Each abstract was assessed for the nine most severe - severity determined by likelihood of distorting a reader's perception - types of spin that occur in systematic review abstracts. The screening and data extraction was performed in a duplicate, masked fashion. The methodological quality of each review was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) instrument. To evaluate relationships between spin, AMSTAR-2 appraisals, and other study characteristics, we used unadjusted odds ratios and Fisher's exact test. Only three of the 102 abstracts contained spin, with spin type 5 being the most prevalent. No abstracts contained spin types 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, or 8, and no association was found between the presence of spin in an abstract and any particular study characteristic. Using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal instrument, 35 (34.3%) of the studies received a methodological quality rating as high, 42 (41.2%) as moderate, 11 (10.8%) as low, and 14 (13.7%) as critically low. We found that's pin is present in only a small proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of glaucoma. In comparison to studies in other fields of medicine, ophthalmology appears to be a leader in publishing systematic reviews and meta-analyses with low rates of spin occurring in the abstract.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33350656
doi: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000001735
pii: 00061198-202103000-00016
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
235-241Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors of this study declare no conflicts of interest.
Références
World Health Organization. Blindness and vision impairment prevention. 2020. Available at: www.who.int/blindness/causes/priority/en/index6.html . Accessed May 15, 2020.
Traverso CE, Walt JG, Kelly SP, et al. Direct costs of glaucoma and severity of the disease: a multinational long term study of resource utilisation in Europe. Br J Ophthalmol. 2005;89:1245–1249.
Chader GJ. Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: neurotrophic agents. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2501–2505.
Borrás T. Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: gene therapy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2506–2510.
Coleman AL. Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2491–2494.
Kaufman PL, Rasmussen CA. Advances in glaucoma treatment and management: outflow drugs. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:2495–2500.
Shah M. Micro-invasive glaucoma surgery—an interventional glaucoma revolution. Eye Vis. 2019;6:29.
Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, et al. Family physicians’ use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14:437–442.
Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56–65.
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, et al. 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;32:4120–4126.
Cooper CM, Gray HM, Ross AE, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials. Laryngoscope. 2018:2036–2040.
Wayant C, Margalski D, Vaughn K, et al. Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;144:102821.
Khan MS, Lateef N, Siddiqi TJ, et al. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2:e192622.
Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Araujo AC, et al. Eight out of every ten abstracts of low back pain systematic reviews presented spin and inconsistencies with the full text: an analysis of 66 systematic reviews. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50:17–23.
Ottwell R, Rogers TC, Michael Anderson J, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of acne vulgaris: cross-sectional analysis. JMIR Dermatol. 2020;3:e16978.
PRISMA. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool. 2019. Available at: http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx . Accessed June 19, 2020.
Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017;22:139–142.
Rayyan QCRI. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. 2014. Available at: https://rayyan.qcri.org/reviews/81224 . Accessed September 10, 2019.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.
Lorenz RC, Matthias K, Pieper D, et al. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;114:133–140.
OSF. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine randomized controlled trials. 2019. Available at: https://osf.io/q8ue2 . Accessed September 9, 2020.
Loskutova E, O’Brien C, Loskutov I, et al. Nutritional supplementation in the treatment of glaucoma: a systematic review. Surv Ophthalmol. 2019;64:195–216.
Wilkins M, Indar A, Wormald R. Intraoperative mitomycin C for glaucoma surgery. Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group, ed. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;7:49.
Wang X, Khan R, Coleman A. Device-modified trabeculectomy for glaucoma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;12:CD010472.
Reynolds-Vaughn V, Riddle J, Brown J, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine randomized controlled trials. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75:423–431.
Kinder NC, Weaver MD, Wayant C, et al. Presence of “spin” in the abstracts and titles of anaesthesiology randomised controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122:e13–e14.
Jellison S, Roberts W, Bowers A, et al. Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals. BMJ Evid Based Med. [Epub ahead of print].
Austin J, Smith C, Natarajan K, et al. Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional review. Clin Obes. 2019;9:e12292.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2020. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current . Accessed June 12, 2020.
Cooper CM, Johnson A, Gray H, et al. An evaluation of the presence of spin in the abstracts of tonsillectomy systematic reviews. Laryngoscope. [Epub ahead of print].