Dataset Information

Spin in the neurosurgical trauma literature: prevalence and associated factors - a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Spin is defined as an inaccurate interpretation of results, intentionally or not, leading to equivocal conclusions and misdirecting readers to look at the data in an overly optimistic way. Previous studies have shown a high prevalence of spin in scientific papers and this systematic review aims to investigate the nature and prevalence of spin in the neurosurgical trauma literature. Any associated factors will be identified to guide future research practice recommendations.

Methods and analysis

The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations will be followed. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled only patients with traumatic brain injury and investigated any type of intervention (surgical or non-surgical) will be eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE/PubMed database will be searched for articles in English published in 15 top-ranked journals. Spin will be defined as (1) a focus on statistically significant results not based on the primary outcome; (2) interpreting statistically non-significant results for a superiority analysis of the primary outcome; (3) claiming or emphasising the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically non-significant results; (4) conclusion focused in the per-protocol or as-treated analysis instead of the intention-to-treat results; (5) incorrect statistical analysis; (6) republication of a significant secondary analysis without proper acknowledgement of the primary outcome analysis result. Traditional descriptive statistics will be used to present RCT characteristics. Standardised differences between the groups with or without spin will be calculated. The variables with a standardised difference equal or above 0.2 and 0.5 will be considered weakly and strongly associated with spin, respectively.

Ethics and dissemination

This study will not involve primary data collection and patients will not be involved.

Trial registration number

10.17605/OSF.IO/H3FGY.

SUBMITTER: Oliveira JVMP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734005 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPreterm birth (PTB) complications are the leading cause of death among neonates globally. The reduction in neonatal mortality is not remarkable in Ethiopia. Therefore, this review will assess the magnitude and associated factors of PTB in Ethiopia.Methods and analysisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline will be followed during the systematic review. We will include all observational studies published from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2019 that examined the level and/or associated factors of any type of PTB among live births in Ethiopia. Inclusion criteria will be all live births, PTB defined as delivery before 37 weeks gestation. The primary outcome will be PTB <37 weeks, and secondary outcomes including PTB <34, <32 and <28 weeks will be analysed. PubMed and Science Direct databases as well as Google search engine and Google Scholar will be searched. The pooled prevalence of preterm and effect size of association for associated factors will be analysed using the Stata software V.14. The heterogeneity between studies will be measured by I2 statistics. A random-effects model will be used to estimate if heterogeneity detected. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot. Subgroup analysis will be sought based on possible characteristics of the studies, specific morbidity (like pre-eclampsia, hypertension), type of PTB (spontaneous or iotrogenic) and quality of study (high-quality or low-risk). Meta-regression will be considered for major covariates (maternal age and maternal body mass index) related to PTB. Forest plots will be used to present the combined estimate with 95% CIs. The quality of evidence of the outcomes will be assessed with the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations) approach.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is necessary for this systematic review. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42017077356.

Project description:IntroductionMitigating the transition from acute to chronic whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) is fundamental, and this could be achieved through early identification of individuals at risk. Several physical factors such as angular velocity, smoothness of neck movement and coactivation of neck flexors and extensors, have been observed in patients with WAD, but their predictive ability after a whiplash injury have not been considered in previous reviews. Therefore, the aim of the current protocol is to outline the protocol for a systematic review that synthesises the current evidence of which physical factors can predict ongoing pain and disability following a whiplash trauma.Methods and analysisTwo independent reviewers will search for studies in several electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science as well as grey literature. Observational cohort studies will be considered if they involve participants with acute WAD followed for at least 3 months post-injury. Studies will be required to assess the prognostic ability of one or more physical factors that directly involve a body function and/or structure and can be measured objectively. Further, patient-reported outcomes of physical function will be considered. The primary outcome for this review is Neck Disability Index, while all other validated measures will be considered as secondary outcomes. Risk of bias across individual studies will be assessed using the Quality In Prognostic Studies tool along with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis will be conducted depending on homogeneity and the number of available studies. If appropriate, data will be pooled and presented as odds ratios, otherwise, a qualitative synthesis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this systematic review. The result from this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Prospero registration numberCRD42019122559.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of phantom limb pain (PLP) in people with amputations is unclear because of the conflicting reports across the literature. It is proposed that the conflicting reports on the prevalence of PLP are a consequence of variations in the time period during which the studies were undertaken, countries in which the studies were conducted and recruitment processes implemented during collection of epidemiological data. In consideration of these factors, we aim to gather and critically appraise relevant literature to determine the prevalence estimate of and risk factors for PLP in people with amputations.MethodsWe will use a customised search strategy containing relevant words and terms to search the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed (via EBSCOhost), PsycINFO (via EBSCOhost), PsycArticles, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (via EBSCOhost), Africa-Wide Information (via EBSCOhost), Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition (via EBSCOhost) SCOPUS, Web of Science and Academic Search Premier (via EBSCOhost). The risk of bias assessment will be conducted using a risk of bias assessment tool for prevalence studies, and data will be extracted using a piloted customised data extraction sheet. Data extracted from individual studies will be entered into Review Manager 5 and assessed for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Studies will be pooled for meta-analysis using the random-effects model to determine a summary estimate of the prevalence of PLP across included studies. A statistically significant level will be set at p?<?0.05.DiscussionAs far as we know, a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of, and risk factors for PLP in people with amputations has not been conducted. Given the varying reports in the literature, it is necessary to determine an estimate of the prevalence of PLP to generate an informed conclusion on this subject. The results of this review will be published in an internationally accredited journal and used to inform researchers, clinicians, policy-makers and the public about the burden of, and risk factors for PLP. This will be done with a further aim to improve the quality of pain management in society.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018094821.