Spin in the Scientific Literature on Bariatric Endoscopy: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Bariatric endoscopy
Obesity
Randomized controlled trial
Spin
Journal
Obesity surgery
ISSN: 1708-0428
Titre abrégé: Obes Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9106714
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
received:
24
09
2021
accepted:
09
11
2021
revised:
28
10
2021
pubmed:
17
11
2021
medline:
27
4
2022
entrez:
16
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bariatric endoscopy (BE) is an emerging treatment option for people with obesity. Spin (i.e., the practice of frequent misrepresentation or overinterpretation of study findings) may lead to imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of the results. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the frequency and type of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of endoscopic primary weight loss techniques with statistically significant and nonsignificant primary outcomes. In conclusion, spin is observed in the abstract and main text of BE reports and can lead to misinterpretation or overinterpretation of the results. Since BE challenges the available non-endoscopic treatments for obesity, further research is needed to better qualify these techniques, as being effective and safe, as well as predefined hypotheses and analyses.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34783961
doi: 10.1007/s11695-021-05790-3
pii: 10.1007/s11695-021-05790-3
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
503-511Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Mhaskar R, Djulbegovic B, Magazin A, Soares HP, Kumar A. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(6):602–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.016
Spieth PM, Kubasch AS, Penzlin AI, Illigens BM-W, Barlinn K, Siepmann T. Randomized controlled trials–a matter of design. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2016;12:1341.
pubmed: 27354804
pmcid: 4910682
Khan MS, Irfan S, Khan SU, Mehra MR, Vaduganathan M. Transforming the interpretation of significance in heart failure trials. Eur J Heart Fail. 2020;22(2):177.
doi: 10.1002/ejhf.1668
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):423–31.
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.03.011
Fletcher RH, Black B. “Spin” in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. Med Law. 2007;26(3):511–25.
pubmed: 17970249
Boutron I, Ravaud P. Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(11):2613–9.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1710755115
Wharton S, Lau DC, Vallis M, Sharma AM, Biertho L, Campbell-Scherer D, et al. Obesity in adults: a clinical practice guideline. CMAJ. 2020;192(31):E875–91.
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.191707
Chang S-H, Stoll CR, Song J, Varela JE, Eagon CJ, Colditz GA. The effectiveness and risks of bariatric surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, 2003–2012. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(3):275–87.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.3654
Hourneaux De Moura DT, Thompson CC. Endoscopic management of weight regain following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab. 2019;14(2):97–110.
doi: 10.1080/17446651.2019.1571907
Cai JX, Schweitzer MA, Kumbhari V. Endoscopic management of bariatric surgery complications. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2016;26(2):93–101.
doi: 10.1097/SLE.0000000000000230
Dayyeh BKA, Edmundowicz SA, Jonnalagadda S, Kumar N, Larsen M, Sullivan S, et al. Endoscopic bariatric therapies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(5):1073–86.
doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.023
Mathieu S, Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2009;302(9):977–84.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1242
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):2058–64.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.651
Gewandter JS, McKeown A, McDermott MP, Dworkin JD, Smith SM, Gross RA, et al. Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review. J Pain. 2015;16(1):3–10.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2014.10.003
Bero L, Chiu K, Grundy Q. The SSSPIN study-spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis. Bmj. 2019;367:l6202.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6202
Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MM. Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin.” Radiology. 2013;267(2):581–8.
doi: 10.1148/radiol.12120527
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(1):1–8.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-015-0079-x
Horton R. The rhetoric of research. BMJ. 1995;310(6985):985–7.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6985.985
Grolleau F, Collins GS, Smarandache A, Pirracchio R, Gakuba C, Boutron I, et al. The fragility and reliability of conclusions of anesthesia and critical care randomized trials with statistically significant findings: a systematic review. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):456–62.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003527
Khan MS, Lateef N, Siddiqi TJ, Rehman KA, Alnaimat S, Khan SU, Riaz H, Murad MH, Mandrola J, Doukky R, Krasuski RA. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA network open. 2019 May 3;2(5):e192622.
Vera-Badillo F, Shapiro R, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock IF. Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2013;24(5):1238–44.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mds636
Rassy N, Rives-Lange C, Poghosyan T, Barsamian C, Moszkowicz D, Thereaux J, Carette C, Czernichow S. Spin occurs in bariatric surgery randomized controlled trials with a statistically nonsignificant primary outcome: A Systematic Review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021 May 17.
Patel SV, Chadi SA, Choi J, Colquhoun PH. The use of “spin” in laparoscopic lower GI surgical trials with nonsignificant results: an assessment of reporting and interpretation of the primary outcomes. Dis Colon Rectum. 2013;56(12):1388–94.
doi: 10.1097/01.dcr.0000436466.50341.c5
Patel SV, Van Koughnett JAM, Howe B, Wexner SD. Spin is common in studies assessing robotic colorectal surgery: an assessment of reporting and interpretation of study results. Dis Colon Rectum. 2015;58(9):878–84.
doi: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000425
Cummings P, Rivara FP. Spin and boasting in research articles. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166(12):1099–100.
doi: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2012.1461
Vinkers CH, Tijdink JK, Otte WM. Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis. Bmj. 2015 Dec 14;351.
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.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0140889
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.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.011
Masquelet A. Recommended clinical practices and evidence-based medicine in surgery. J Visc Surg. 2013;150(2):151–2.
doi: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2013.02.002
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):4120–6.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7503
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2003;326(7379):41–4.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41
Boutron I. Spin in scientific publications: a frequent detrimental research practice. Ann Emerg Med. 2020;75(3):432–4.
doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.11.002
Turrentine M. It’s all how you “spin” it. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;129(2):239–42.
doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001818
Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457–65.
doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gøtzsche PC, Devereaux P, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(8):e1–37.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004