Dataset Information

Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.

Design

Cross-sectional study.

Setting

International medical literature.

Participants

Preprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.

Main outcome measures

Study characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).

Results

Of 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

SUBMITTER: Bero L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8288242 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:For a randomized trial, the primary publication is usually the one which reports the results of the primary outcome and provides consolidated data from all study centers. Other aspects of a randomized trial's findings (that is, non-primary results) are often reported in subsequent publications.We carried out a cross-sectional review of the characteristics and type of information reported in non-primary reports (n = 69) of randomized trials (indexed in PubMed core clinical journals in 2009) and whether they report pre-specified or exploratory analyses. We also compared consistency of information in non-primary publications with that reported in the primary publication.The majority (n = 56; 81%) of non-primary publications were large, multicenter trials, published in specialty journals. Most reported subgroup analyses (n = 27; 39%), analyzing a specific subgroup of patients from the randomized trial, or reported on secondary outcomes (n = 29; 42%); 19% (n = 13) reported extended follow-up. Less than half reported details of trial registration (n = 30; 43%) or the trial protocol (n = 27; 39%) and in 41% (n = 28) it was unclear from reading the abstract that the report was not the primary publication for the trial. Non-primary publications often analyzed and reported multiple different outcomes (16% reported >20 outcomes) and in 10% (n = 7) it was unclear how many outcomes had actually been assessed; in 42% (n = 29) it was unclear whether the analyses reported were pre-specified or exploratory. Only 39% (n = 27) of non-primary publications described the primary outcome of the randomized trial, 6% (n = 4) reported its numerical results and 9% (n = 6) details of how participants were randomized.Non-primary publications often lack important information about the randomized trial and the type of analyses conducted and whether these were pre-specified or exploratory to enable readers to accurately identify and assess the validity and reliably of the study findings. We provide recommendations for what information authors should include in non-primary reports of randomized trials.

Project description:Background:Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called "spin". In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin. Methods:Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of "spin" related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups. Discussion:We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still "recruiting". PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

Project description:Clinical trials are one of the most important sources of evidence for guiding evidence-based practice and the design of new trials. However, most of this information is available only in free text - e.g., in journal publications - which is labour intensive to process for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and other evidence synthesis studies. This paper presents an automatic information extraction system, called ExaCT, that assists users with locating and extracting key trial characteristics (e.g., eligibility criteria, sample size, drug dosage, primary outcomes) from full-text journal articles reporting on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).ExaCT consists of two parts: an information extraction (IE) engine that searches the article for text fragments that best describe the trial characteristics, and a web browser-based user interface that allows human reviewers to assess and modify the suggested selections. The IE engine uses a statistical text classifier to locate those sentences that have the highest probability of describing a trial characteristic. Then, the IE engine's second stage applies simple rules to these sentences to extract text fragments containing the target answer. The same approach is used for all 21 trial characteristics selected for this study.We evaluated ExaCT using 50 previously unseen articles describing RCTs. The text classifier (first stage) was able to recover 88% of relevant sentences among its top five candidates (top5 recall) with the topmost candidate being relevant in 80% of cases (top1 precision). Precision and recall of the extraction rules (second stage) were 93% and 91%, respectively. Together, the two stages of the extraction engine were able to provide (partially) correct solutions in 992 out of 1050 test tasks (94%), with a majority of these (696) representing fully correct and complete answers.Our experiments confirmed the applicability and efficacy of ExaCT. Furthermore, they demonstrated that combining a statistical method with 'weak' extraction rules can identify a variety of study characteristics. The system is flexible and can be extended to handle other characteristics and document types (e.g., study protocols).

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts.DesignMasked randomised trial. Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication.InterventionControl groupconventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines. Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale.ResultsOf 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).ConclusionsAdditional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).

Project description:Spin in the reporting of randomized controlled trials, where authors report research in a way that potentially misrepresents results and mislead readers, has been demonstrated in the broader medical literature. We investigated spin in wound care trials with (a) no statistically significant result for the primary outcome and (b) no clearly specified primary outcome.We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies were: Parallel-group RCTs of interventions for foot, leg or pressure ulcers published in 2004 to 2009 (inclusive) with either a clearly identified primary outcome for which there was a statistically non-significant result (Cohort A) or studies that had no clear primary outcome (Cohort B).We extracted general study details. For both Cohorts A and B we then assessed for the presence of spin. For Cohort A we used a pre-defined process to assess reports for spin. For Cohort B we aimed to assess spin by recording the number of positive treatment effect claims made. We also compared the number of statistically significant and non-significant results reported in the main text and the abstract looking specifically for spin in the form of selective outcome reporting.Of the 71 eligible studies, 28 were eligible for Cohort A; of these, 71% (20/28) contained spin. Cohort B contained 43 studies; of these, 86% (37/43) had abstracts that claimed a favorable treatment claim. Whilst 74% (32/43) of main text results in Cohort B included at least one statistically non-significant result, this was not reflected in the abstract where only 28% contained (12/43) at least one statistically non-significant result.Spin is a frequent phenomenon in reports of RCTs of wound treatments. Studies without statistically significant results for the primary outcome used spin in 71% of cases. Furthermore, 33% (43/132) of reports of wound RCTs did not specify a primary outcome and there was evidence of spin and selective outcome reporting in the abstracts of these. Readers should be wary of only reading the abstracts of reports of RCTs of wound treatments since they are frequently misleading regarding treatment effects.