CONTEXT: Previous studies indicate that the interpretation of trial results can be distorted by authors of published reports. OBJECTIVE: To identify the nature and frequency of distorted presentation or "spin" (ie, specific reporting strategies, whatever their motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results) in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. DATA SOURCES: March 2007 search of MEDLINE via PubMed using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy to identify reports of RCTs published in December 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they were parallel-group RCTs with a clearly identified primary outcome showing statistically nonsignificant results (ie, P > or = .05). DATA EXTRACTION: Two readers appraised each selected article using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. RESULTS: From the 616 published reports of RCTs examined, 72 were eligible and appraised. The title was reported with spin in 13 articles (18.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0%-28.9%). Spin was identified in the Results and Conclusions sections of the abstracts of 27 (37.5%; 95% CI, 26.4%-49.7%) and 42 (58.3%; 95% CI, 46.1%-69.8%) reports, respectively, with the conclusions of 17 (23.6%; 95% CI, 14.4%-35.1%) focusing only on treatment effectiveness. Spin was identified in the main-text Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of 21 (29.2%; 95% CI, 19.0%-41.1%), 31 (43.1%; 95% CI, 31.4%-55.3%), and 36 (50.0%; 95% CI, 38.0%-62.0%) reports, respectively. More than 40% of the reports had spin in at least 2 of these sections in the main text. CONCLUSION: In this representative sample of RCTs published in 2006 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.
CONTEXT: Previous studies indicate that the interpretation of trial results can be distorted by authors of published reports. OBJECTIVE: To identify the nature and frequency of distorted presentation or "spin" (ie, specific reporting strategies, whatever their motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results) in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. DATA SOURCES: March 2007 search of MEDLINE via PubMed using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy to identify reports of RCTs published in December 2006. STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if they were parallel-group RCTs with a clearly identified primary outcome showing statistically nonsignificant results (ie, P > or = .05). DATA EXTRACTION: Two readers appraised each selected article using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test. RESULTS: From the 616 published reports of RCTs examined, 72 were eligible and appraised. The title was reported with spin in 13 articles (18.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0%-28.9%). Spin was identified in the Results and Conclusions sections of the abstracts of 27 (37.5%; 95% CI, 26.4%-49.7%) and 42 (58.3%; 95% CI, 46.1%-69.8%) reports, respectively, with the conclusions of 17 (23.6%; 95% CI, 14.4%-35.1%) focusing only on treatment effectiveness. Spin was identified in the main-text Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of 21 (29.2%; 95% CI, 19.0%-41.1%), 31 (43.1%; 95% CI, 31.4%-55.3%), and 36 (50.0%; 95% CI, 38.0%-62.0%) reports, respectively. More than 40% of the reports had spin in at least 2 of these sections in the main text. CONCLUSION: In this representative sample of RCTs published in 2006 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.
Authors: Nicola Latronico; Marta Metelli; Maddalena Turin; Simone Piva; Frank A Rasulo; Cosetta Minelli Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-07 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Mario Gaudino; Irbaz Hameed; Mohamed Rahouma; Faiza M Khan; Derrick Y Tam; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Michelle Demetres; Mary E Charlson; Marc Ruel; Filippo Crea; Volkmar Falk; Leonard N Girardi; Stephen Fremes; Joanna Chikwe Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Steven P Cohen; Arun Bhaskar; Anuj Bhatia; Asokumar Buvanendran; Tim Deer; Shuchita Garg; W Michael Hooten; Robert W Hurley; David J Kennedy; Brian C McLean; Jee Youn Moon; Samer Narouze; Sanjog Pangarkar; David Anthony Provenzano; Richard Rauck; B Todd Sitzman; Matthew Smuck; Jan van Zundert; Kevin Vorenkamp; Mark S Wallace; Zirong Zhao Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 6.288