Dataset Information

Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.

ABSTRACT: Background: Spin refers to reporting practices that could distort the interpretation and mislead readers by being more optimistic than the results justify, thereby possibly changing the perception of clinicians and influence their decisions. Because of the clinical importance of accurate interpretation of results and the evidence of spin in other research fields, we aim to identify the nature and frequency of spin in published reports of tinnitus randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess possible determinants and effects of spin. Methods: We searched PubMed systematically for RCTs with tinnitus-related outcomes published from 2015 to 2019. All eligible articles were assessed on actual and potential spin using prespecified criteria. Results: Our search identified 628 studies, of which 87 were eligible for evaluation. A total of 95% of the studies contained actual or potential spin. Actual spin was found mostly in the conclusion of articles, which reflected something else than the reported point estimate (or CI) of the outcome (n = 34, 39%) or which was selectively focused (n = 49, 56%). Linguistic spin ("trend," "marginally significant," or "tendency toward an effect") was found in 17% of the studies. We were not able to assess the association between study characteristics and the occurrence of spin due to the low number of trials for some categories of the study characteristics. We found no effect of spin on type of journal [odds ratio (OR) -0.13, 95% CI -0.56-0.31], journal impact factor (OR 0.17, 95% CI -0.18-0.51), or number of citations (OR 1.95, CI -2.74-6.65). Conclusion: There is a large amount of spin in tinnitus RCTs. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in reporting and interpretation of results. Awareness of different forms of spin must be raised to improve research quality and reduce research waste.

SUBMITTER: Velde HM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8322656 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Randomized trials are essential in assessing the effects of healthcare interventions and are a key component in systematic reviews of effectiveness. Searching for reports of randomized trials in databases is problematic due to the absence of appropriate indexing terms until the 1990s and inconsistent application of these indexing terms thereafter. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study are to devise a search strategy for identifying reports of randomized trials in EMBASE which are not already indexed as trials in MEDLINE and to make these reports easily accessible by including them in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library, with the permission of Elsevier, the publishers of EMBASE. METHODS: A highly sensitive search strategy was designed for EMBASE based on free-text and thesaurus terms which occurred frequently in the titles, abstracts, EMTREE terms (or some combination of these) of reports of trials indexed in EMBASE. This search strategy was run against EMBASE from 1980 to 2005 (1974 to 2005 for four of the terms) and records retrieved by the search, which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, were downloaded from EMBASE, printed and read. An analysis of the language of publication was conducted for the reports of trials published in 2005 (the most recent year completed at the time of this study). RESULTS: Twenty-two search terms were used (including nine which were later rejected due to poor cumulative precision). More than a third of a million records were downloaded and scanned and approximately 80,000 reports of trials were identified which were not already indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE. These are now easily identifiable in CENTRAL, in The Cochrane Library. Cumulative sensitivity ranged from 0.1% to 60% and cumulative precision ranged from 8% to 61%. The truncated term 'random$' identified 60% of the total number of reports of trials but only 35% of the more than 130,000 records retrieved by this term were reports of trials. The language analysis for the sample year 2005 indicated that of the 18,427 reports indexed as randomized trials in MEDLINE, 959 (5%) were in languages other than English. The EMBASE search identified an additional 658 reports in languages other than English, of which the highest number were in Chinese (320). CONCLUSION: The results of the search to date have greatly increased access to reports of trials in EMBASE, especially in some languages other than English. The search strategy used was subjectively derived from a small 'gold standard' set of test records and was not validated in an independent test set. We intend to design an objectively-derived validated search strategy using logistic regression based on the frequency of occurrence of terms in the approximately 80,000 reports of randomized trials identified compared with the frequency of these terms across the entire EMBASE database.

Project description:ImportanceClinical researchers are obligated to present results objectively and accurately to ensure readers are not misled. In studies in which primary end points are not statistically significant, placing a spin, defined as the manipulation of language to potentially mislead readers from the likely truth of the results, can distract the reader and lead to misinterpretation and misapplication of the findings.ObjectiveTo determine the level and prevalence of spin in published reports of cardiovascular randomized clinical trial (RCT) reports.Data sourceMEDLINE was searched from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017, using the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy.Study selectionInclusion criteria were parallel-group RCTs published from January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017 in 1 of 6 high-impact journals (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, European Heart Journal, Circulation, and Journal of the American College of Cardiology) with primary outcomes that were not statistically significant were included in the analysis.Data extraction and synthesisAnalysis began in August 2018. Data were extracted and verified by 2 independent investigators using a standard collection form. In cases of disagreement between the 2 investigators, a third investigators served as arbitrator.Main outcomes and measuresThe classifications of spin type, severity, and extent were determined according to predefined criteria. Primary clinical outcomes were divided into safety of treatment, efficacy of treatment, and both.ResultsOf 587 studies identified, 93 RCT reports (15.8%) met inclusion criteria. Spin was identified in 53 abstracts (57%; 95% CI, 47%-67%) and 62 main texts of published articles (67%; 95% CI, 57%-75%). Ten reports (11%; 95% CI, 6%-19%) had spin in the title, 35 reports (38%; 95% CI, 28%-48%) had spin in the results section, and 50 reports (54%; 95% CI, 44%-64%) had spin in the conclusions. Among the abstracts, spin was observed in 38 results sections (41%; 95% CI, 31%-51%) and 45 conclusions sections (48%; 95% CI, 38%-58%).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that in reports of cardiovascular RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, investigators often manipulate the language of the report to detract from the neutral primary outcomes. To best apply evidence to patient care, consumers of cardiovascular research should be aware that peer review does not always preclude the use of misleading language in scientific articles.

Project description:IntroductionPublishing protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCT) facilitates a more detailed description of study rational, design, and related ethical and safety issues, which should promote transparency. Little is known about how the practice of publishing protocols developed over time. Therefore, this study describes the worldwide trends in volume and methodological quality of published RCT protocols.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE, identifying RCT protocols published over a decade from 1 September 2001. Data were extracted on quality characteristics of RCT protocols. The primary outcome, methodological quality, was assessed by individual methodological characteristics (adequate generation of allocation, concealment of allocation and intention-to-treat analysis). A comparison was made by publication period (First, September 2001- December 2004; Second, January 2005-May 2008; Third, June 2008-September 2011), geographical region and medical specialty.ResultsThe number of published RCT protocols increased from 69 in the first, to 390 in the third period (p<0.0001). Internal medicine and paediatrics were the most common specialty topics. Whereas most published RCT protocols in the first period originated from North America (n = 30, 44%), in the second and third period this was Europe (respectively, n = 65, 47% and n = 190, 48%, p = 0.02). Quality of RCT protocols was higher in Europe and Australasia, compared to North America (OR = 0.63, CI = 0.40-0.99, p = 0.04). Adequate generation of allocation improved with time (44%, 58%, 67%, p = 0.001), as did concealment of allocation (38%, 53%, 55%, p = 0.03). Surgical protocols had the highest quality among the three specialty topics used in this study (OR = 1.94, CI = 1.09-3.45, p = 0.02).ConclusionPublishing RCT protocols has become popular, with a five-fold increase in the past decade. The quality of published RCT protocols also improved, although variation between geographical regions and across medical specialties was seen. This emphasizes the importance of international standards of comprehensive training in RCT methodology.

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.

Project description:BackgroundBlinding is a cornerstone of therapeutic evaluation because lack of blinding can bias treatment effect estimates. An inventory of the blinding methods would help trialists conduct high-quality clinical trials and readers appraise the quality of results of published trials. We aimed to systematically classify and describe methods to establish and maintain blinding of patients and health care providers and methods to obtain blinding of outcome assessors in randomized controlled trials of pharmacologic treatments.Methods and findingsWe undertook a systematic review of all reports of randomized controlled trials assessing pharmacologic treatments with blinding published in 2004 in high impact-factor journals from Medline and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We used a standardized data collection form to extract data. The blinding methods were classified according to whether they primarily (1) established blinding of patients or health care providers, (2) maintained the blinding of patients or health care providers, and (3) obtained blinding of assessors of the main outcomes. We identified 819 articles, with 472 (58%) describing the method of blinding. Methods to establish blinding of patients and/or health care providers concerned mainly treatments provided in identical form, specific methods to mask some characteristics of the treatments (e.g., added flavor or opaque coverage), or use of double dummy procedures or simulation of an injection. Methods to avoid unblinding of patients and/or health care providers involved use of active placebo, centralized assessment of side effects, patients informed only in part about the potential side effects of each treatment, centralized adapted dosage, or provision of sham results of complementary investigations. The methods reported for blinding outcome assessors mainly relied on a centralized assessment of complementary investigations, clinical examination (i.e., use of video, audiotape, or photography), or adjudication of clinical events.ConclusionsThis review classifies blinding methods and provides a detailed description of methods that could help trialists overcome some barriers to blinding in clinical trials and readers interpret the quality of pharmacologic trials.

Dataset Information

Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets