Dataset Information

"Spin" in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Lockyer S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3832286 | biostudies-other | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

"Spin" in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.

Lockyer Suzanne S Hodgson Rob R Dumville Jo C JC Cullum Nicky N

Trials 20131106

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials for randomized controlled tri ...[more]

PMID: 24195770

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSpin, the inaccurate reporting of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with results that are not statistically significant for the primary end point, distorts interpretation of results and leads to misinterpretation. However, the prevalence of spin and related factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs remains unclear.ObjectiveTo examine misleading reporting, or spin, and the associated factors in noninferiority cancer RCTs through a systematic review.Data sourcesA systematic search of the PubMed database was performed for articles published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy.Study selectionTwo investigators independently selected studies using the inclusion criteria of noninferiority parallel-group RCTs aiming to confirm effects to cancer treatments published between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019, reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points.Data extraction and synthesisStandardized data abstraction was used to extract information concerning the trial characteristics and spin based on a prespecified definition. The main investigator extracted the trial characteristics while both readers independently evaluated the spin. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was spin prevalence in any section of the report. Spin was defined as use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite no statistically significant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from results that are not statistically significant. The associations (prevalence difference and odds ratios [ORs]) between spin and trial characteristics were also evaluated.ResultsThe analysis included 52 of 2752 reports identified in the PubMed search. Spin was identified in 39 reports (75.0%; 95% CI, 61.6%-84.9%), including the abstract (34 reports [65.4%; 95% CI, 51.1%-76.9%]) and the main text (38 reports [73.1%; 95% CI, 59.7%-83.3%]). Univariate analysis found that the spin prevalence was higher in reports with data managers (prevalence difference, 27%; 95% CI, 1.1%-50.3%), reports without funding from for-profit sources (prevalence difference, 31.2%; 95% CI, 4.8%-53.8%), and reports of novel experimental treatments (prevalence difference, 37.5%; 95% CI, 5.8%-64.7%). Multivariable analysis found that novel experimental treatment (OR, 4.64; 95% CI, 0.98-22.02) and funding only from nonprofit sources only (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 1.21-22.29) were associated with spin.Conclusions and relevanceIn this systematic review, most noninferiority RCTs reporting results that were not statistically significant for the primary end points showed distorted interpretation and inaccurate reporting. The novelty of an experimental treatment and funding only from nonprofit sources were associated with spin.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence-based health care is informed by results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and their syntheses in meta-analyses. When the trial outcomes measured are not clearly described in trial publications, knowledge synthesis, translation, and decision-making may be impeded. While heterogeneity in outcomes measured in adolescent major depressive disorder (MDD) RCTs has been described, the comprehensiveness of outcome reporting is unknown. This study aimed to assess the reporting of primary outcomes in RCTs evaluating treatments for adolescent MDD. METHODS:RCTs evaluating treatment interventions in adolescents with a diagnosis of MDD published between 2008 and 2017 specifying a single primary outcome were eligible for outcome reporting assessment. Outcome reporting assessment was done independently in duplicate using a comprehensive checklist of 58 reporting items. Primary outcome information provided in each RCT publication was scored as "fully reported", "partially reported", or "not reported" for each checklist item, as applicable. RESULTS:Eighteen of 42 identified articles were found to have a discernable single primary outcome and were included for outcome reporting assessment. Most trials (72%) did not fully report on over half of the 58 checklist items. Items describing masking of outcome assessors, timing and frequency of outcome assessment, and outcome analyses were fully reported in over 70% of trials. Items less frequently reported included outcome measurement instrument properties (ranging from 6 to 17%), justification of timing and frequency of outcome assessment (6%), and justification of criteria used for clinically significant differences (17%). The overall comprehensiveness of reporting appeared stable over time. CONCLUSIONS:Heterogeneous reporting exists in published adolescent MDD RCTs, with frequent omissions of key details about their primary outcomes. These omissions may impair interpretability, replicability, and synthesis of RCTs that inform clinical guidelines and decision-making in this field. Consensus on the minimal criteria for outcome reporting in adolescent MDD RCTs is needed.

Project description:The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of RCTs in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015 until October 28, 2022 were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a pre-determined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national level was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95%CI: 2% to 6%) and 79% (95%CI: 74% to 84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR=2.131; 95%CI: 1.092 to 4.158; P=0.03), trial designs (non-parallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR=0.395; 95%CI: 0.193 to 0.810; P=0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR=0.998; 95%CI: 0.996 to 0.999; P<0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.

Project description:BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:Trial registration is widely endorsed as it is considered not only to enhance transparency and quality of reporting but also to help safeguard against outcome reporting bias and probably spin, known as specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results thus mislead readers. We planned to investigate the current registration status of recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture, outcome reporting bias in the prospectively registered trials, and the association between trial registration and presence of spin and methodological factors in acupuncture RCTs. METHODS:Acupuncture RCTs published in English in recent 5 years (January 2013 to December 2017) were searched in PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. Trial registration records identified in the publications and trial registries were classified into prospectively registered, retrospectively registered, or unregistered. Primary outcomes were identified and the direction of the results was judged as statistically significant (positive) or statistically nonsignificant (negative). We compared registered and published primary outcomes to assess outcome reporting bias and assessed whether discrepancies favored statistically significant outcomes. Frequency and strategies of spin in published reports with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes were then identified. We also analyzed whether the trial registration status was associated with spin and quality of methodological factors. RESULTS:Of the 322 included RCTs, 41.9% (n = 135) were prospectively registered. Among 64 studies that were prospectively registered and specified primary outcomes, 25 trials had the discrepancies between the registered and published primary outcomes and 60% of them (15 trials) favored the statistically significant findings. Among 169 studies that specified primary outcomes, trial registration status was not associated with the direction of results, i.e., statistically significant or not. Spin was identified in 56.4% out of 78 studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and claiming efficacy with no consideration of statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes was the most common strategy for spin. Trial registration status was not statistically different between studies with and without spin. CONCLUSION:While trial registration seemed to have improved over time, primary outcomes in registered records and publications were often inconsistent, tending to favor statistically significant findings and spin was common in studies with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes. Journal editors and researchers in this field should be alerted to still prevalent reporting bias and spin.

Project description:BackgroundNews stories represent an important source of information. We aimed to evaluate the impact of "spin" (i.e., misrepresentation of study results) in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit.MethodsWe conducted three two-arm, parallel-group, Internet-based randomized trials (RCTs) comparing the interpretation of news stories reported with or without spin. Each RCT considered news stories reporting a different type of study: (1) pre-clinical study, (2) phase I/II non-RCT, and (3) phase III/IV RCT. For each type of study, we identified news stories reported with spin that had earned mention in the press. Two versions of the news stories were used: the version with spin and a version rewritten without spin. Participants were patients/caregivers involved in Inspire, a large online community of more than one million patients/caregivers. The primary outcome was participants' interpretation assessed by one specific question "What do you think is the probability that 'treatment X' would be beneficial to patients?" (scale, 0 [very unlikely] to 10 [very likely]).ResultsFor each RCT, 300 participants were randomly assigned to assess a news story with spin (n = 150) or without spin (n = 150), and 900 participants assessed a news story. Participants were more likely to consider that the treatment would be beneficial to patients when the news story was reported with spin. The mean (SD) score for the primary outcome for abstracts reported with and without spin for pre-clinical studies was 7.5 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.8) (mean difference [95% CI] 1.7 [1.0-2.3], p < 0.001); for phase I/II non-randomized trials, 7.6 (2.2) versus 5.8 (2.7) (mean difference 1.8 [1.0-2.5], p < 0.001); and for phase III/IV RCTs, 7.2 (2.3) versus 4.9 (2.8) (mean difference 2.3 [1.4-3.2], p < 0.001).ConclusionsSpin in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments affects patients'/caregivers' interpretation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03094078 , NCT03094104 , NCT03095586.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based care relies on robust research. The fragility index (FI) is used to assess the robustness of statistically significant findings in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). While the traditional FI is limited to dichotomous outcomes, a novel tool, the continuous fragility index (CFI), allows for the assessment of the robustness of continuous outcomes.PurposeTo calculate the CFI of statistically significant continuous outcomes in RCTs evaluating interventions for managing anterior shoulder instability (ASI).Study designMeta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsA search was conducted across the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases for RCTs assessing management strategies for ASI from inception to October 6, 2022. Studies that reported a statistically significant difference between study groups in ≥1 continuous outcome were included. The CFI was calculated and applied to all available RCTs reporting interventions for ASI. Multivariable linear regression was performed between the CFI and various study characteristics as predictors.ResultsThere were 27 RCTs, with a total of 1846 shoulders, included. The median sample size was 61 shoulders (IQR, 43). The median CFI across 27 RCTs was 8.2 (IQR, 17.2; 95% CI, 3.6-15.4). The median CFI was 7.9 (IQR, 21; 95% CI, 1-22) for 11 studies comparing surgical methods, 22.6 (IQR, 16; 95% CI, 8.2-30.4) for 6 studies comparing nonsurgical reduction interventions, 2.8 for 3 studies comparing immobilization methods, and 2.4 for 3 studies comparing surgical versus nonsurgical interventions. Significantly, 22 of 57 included outcomes (38.6%) from studies with completed follow-up data had a loss to follow-up exceeding their CFI. Multivariable regression demonstrated that there was a statistically significant positive correlation between a trial's sample size and the CFI of its outcomes (r = 0.23 [95% CI, 0.13-0.33]; P < .001).ConclusionMore than a third of continuous outcomes in ASI trials had a CFI less than the reported loss to follow-up. This carries the significant risk of reversing trial findings and should be considered when evaluating available RCT data. We recommend including the FI, CFI, and loss to follow-up in the abstracts of future RCTs.

Dataset Information

"Spin" in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.

Publications

"Spin" in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets