“Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes
Open Access
- 6 November 2013
- journal article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Trials
- Vol. 14 (1), 371
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-371
Abstract
Background 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.Keywords
This publication has 26 references indexed in Scilit:
- Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin® litigationTrials, 2012
- Factors Associated with Results and Conclusions of Trials of ThiazolidinedionesPLOS ONE, 2009
- How is research evidence used to support claims made in advertisements for wound care products?Journal of Clinical Nursing, 2009
- Relation of study quality, concordance, take home message, funding, and impact in studies of influenza vaccines: systematic reviewBMJ, 2009
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting BiasPLOS ONE, 2008
- Standardising Outcomes in Paediatric Clinical TrialsPLoS Medicine, 2008
- CONSORT for Reporting Randomized Controlled Trials in Journal and Conference Abstracts: Explanation and ElaborationPLoS Medicine, 2008
- Listen to the data when results are not significantBMJ, 2008
- Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort studyBMJ, 2007
- Empirical Evidence for Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2004