Spin Infrequently Occurs in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews For The Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.
health care delivery
insulin therapy
metformin
oral therapies
Journal
Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association
ISSN: 1464-5491
Titre abrégé: Diabet Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8500858
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Jul 2021
21 Jul 2021
Historique:
entrez:
21
7
2021
pubmed:
22
7
2021
medline:
22
7
2021
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Currently, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that spin - the misinterpretation and distortion of a study's findings - is common in different fields of medicine. To our knowledge, no study has investigated its presence in systematic reviews focused on diabetic therapies. We performed a cross-sectional study by searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our search retrieved 26,490 records, from which 199 studies were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study design parameters. Spin was presented as frequencies and odds ratios to identify associations between study characteristics. Spin was identified in the abstracts of 15 systematic reviews (15/199, 7.5%). Spin type 5 was the most common type identified (7/199, 3.5%). Spin types 1, 2, 4, and 8 were not identified. In the last 5 years (2016-2021), 7 systematic reviews contained spin within their abstract. There was no association between spins presence and any extracted study characteristic . Our findings show that spin infrequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic therapies for type 2 diabetes mellitus. However, any amount of spin can lead to the distortion of a reader's interpretation of the study's findings. Thus, we provide recommendations with rationale to prevent spin in future systematic reviews.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e14653Informations de copyright
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Références
Palicka V. Pathophysiology of diabetes mellitus. EJIFCC. 2002;13(5):140-144.
Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Gregg EW, Barker LE, Williamson DF. Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence. Popul Health Metr. 2010;8:29.
Cho NH, Shaw JE, Karuranga S, et al. IDF diabetes atlas: global estimates of diabetes prevalence for 2017 and projections for 2045. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;138:271-281.
Weigl M, Müller A, Zupanc A, Angerer P. Participant observation of time allocation, direct patient contact and simultaneous activities in hospital physicians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009;9:110.
Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9-14.
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.
Johnson HL, Fontelo P, Olsen CH, Jones KD 2nd, Gimbel RW. Family nurse practitioner student perception of journal abstract usefulness in clinical decision making: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Assoc Nurse Pract. 2013;25(11):597-603.
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.
Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:85.
Cooper CM, Gray HM, Ross AE, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials. The Laryngoscope. 2019;129(9):2036-2040.
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. Clinical Obesity. 2019;9(2):e12292. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12292
Reynolds-Vaughn V, Riddle J, Brown J, Schiesel M, Wayant C, Vassar M. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine randomized controlled trials. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75(3):423-431.
Tan WK, Wigley J, Shantikumar S. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1262-1265.
Heigle B, Kee M. Systematic review spin: Meniere’s disease. Published online May 29, 2020. Accessed May 29, 2020. https://osf.io/xndh7/
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(7):e1000100.
Murad MH, Wang Z. Guidelines for reporting meta-epidemiological methodology research. Evid Based Med. 2017;22(4):139-142.
Rayyan QCRI. Accessed September 10, 2019. https://rayyan.qcri.org/reviews/81224
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.
Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis | Coursera. Coursera. Accessed June 13, 2020. https://www.coursera.org/learn/systematic-review
Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.
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.
Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of erectile dysfunction: a cross-sectional analysis. Sex Med Today. 2020;9(1):100284.
Jones C, Rulon Z, Arthur W, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. Published online January 19, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.026
Heigle B, Kee M, Ottwell R, et al. Spin the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding the treatment of Ménière’s disease. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. Published online March 18, 2021:34894211000493.
Lin V, Patel R, Wirtz A, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of atopic dermatitis treatments and interventions. Dermatology. Published online May 17, 2021:1-10.
Demla S, Shinn E, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies. Am J Ophthalmol. Published online April 3, 2021;228:47-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.03.032
Verble C, Cloeter M, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of alcohol use disorder. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. Published online April 26, 2021;1-10.
Balcerak G, Shepard S, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on opioid use disorder. Subst Abus. Published online April 13, 2021;1-9.
Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Araujo AC, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Costa LOP. 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(1):17-23.
Cole WT, Wittl P, Arthur W, et al. Spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention. J Osteopath Med. Published online June 30, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2021-0085
Ottwell R, Rogers TC, Michael Anderson J, Johnson A, Vassar M. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of acne vulgaris: cross-sectional analysis. JMIR Dermatology. 2020;3(1):e16978.
Reddy AK, Shepard S, Ottwell R, et al. Over 30% of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on rotator cuff tear treatments contained spin in the abstract. Arthroscopy. Published online April 19, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2021.03.066
Garrett M, Koochin T, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation. Tob Prev Cessat. 2021;7:35.
Okonya O, Lai E, Khattab M, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments for glaucoma. J Glaucoma. 2021;30(3):235-241. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000001735
Rucker B, Umbarger E, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on tinnitus. Otol Neurotol. Published online May 10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003178
Karagiannis T, Paschos P, Paletas K, Matthews DR, Tsapas A. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the clinical setting: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012;344:e1369.
Freemantle N, Chou E, Frois C, et al. Safety and efficacy of insulin glargine 300 u/mL compared with other basal insulin therapies in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e009421.
Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, Hopewell S, Altman DG, Boutron I. Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;77:44-51.