‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review
Top Cited Papers
Open Access
- 11 September 2017
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLoS Biology
- Vol. 15 (9), e2002173
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173
Abstract
In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers’ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research. In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. We conducted a systematic review to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers’ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research.Keywords
This publication has 46 references indexed in Scilit:
- “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomesTrials, 2013
- Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias — An Updated ReviewPLOS ONE, 2013
- Deficient Reporting and Interpretation of Non-Inferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in HIV Patients: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE, 2013
- Implementation of a publication strategy in the context of reporting biases. A case study based on new documents from Neurontin® litigationTrials, 2012
- Optimism bias leads to inconclusive results—an empirical studyJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2010
- Assessing Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects: Are Authors Misinterpreting Their Results?Health Services Research, 2010
- Use of Causal Language in Observational Studies of Obesity and NutritionObesity Facts, 2010
- Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics supportJournal of Biomedical Informatics, 2008
- Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort studyBMJ, 2007