Clément Lazarus1, Romana Haneef2, Philippe Ravaud3, Sally Hopewell4, Douglas G Altman4, Isabelle Boutron5. 1. INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS Team 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France. 2. INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS Team 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France. 3. INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS Team 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, 22 W 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA. 4. Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Botnar Research Centre, Windmill Road, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK. 5. INSERM, UMR 1153, Epidemiology and Biostatistics Sorbonne Paris Cité Center (CRESS), METHODS Team 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Paris Descartes University, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Faculté de Médecine, 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, AP-HP (Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris), 1 place du Parvis Notre Dame 75004, Paris, France. Electronic address: isabelle.boutron@htd.aphp.fr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of peer reviewers on spin in reports of nonrandomized studies assessing a therapeutic intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a systematic review and retrospective before-after study. The sample consists of primary reports (n = 128) published in BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. The main outcome measures are the following: number and type of spin examples identified, deleted, or added by peer reviewers in the whole manuscript; number of reports with spin in abstract conclusions not detected by peer reviewers; the level of spin (i.e., no, low, moderate, and high level of spin) in the abstract conclusions before and after the peer review. RESULTS: For 70 (55%) submitted manuscripts, peer reviewers identified at least one example of spin. Of 123 unique examples of spin identified by peer reviewers, 82 (67%) were completely deleted by the authors. For 19 articles (15%), peer reviewers requested adding some spin, and for 11 (9%), the spin was added by the authors. Peer reviewers failed to identify spin in abstract conclusions of 97 (76%) reports. CONCLUSION: Peer reviewers identified many examples of spin in submitted manuscripts. However, their influence on changing spin in the abstract conclusions was low.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the impact of peer reviewers on spin in reports of nonrandomized studies assessing a therapeutic intervention. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a systematic review and retrospective before-after study. The sample consists of primary reports (n = 128) published in BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. The main outcome measures are the following: number and type of spin examples identified, deleted, or added by peer reviewers in the whole manuscript; number of reports with spin in abstract conclusions not detected by peer reviewers; the level of spin (i.e., no, low, moderate, and high level of spin) in the abstract conclusions before and after the peer review. RESULTS: For 70 (55%) submitted manuscripts, peer reviewers identified at least one example of spin. Of 123 unique examples of spin identified by peer reviewers, 82 (67%) were completely deleted by the authors. For 19 articles (15%), peer reviewers requested adding some spin, and for 11 (9%), the spin was added by the authors. Peer reviewers failed to identify spin in abstract conclusions of 97 (76%) reports. CONCLUSION: Peer reviewers identified many examples of spin in submitted manuscripts. However, their influence on changing spin in the abstract conclusions was low.
Authors: Paolo Magni; Dennis M Bier; Sergio Pecorelli; Carlo Agostoni; Arne Astrup; Furio Brighenti; Robert Cook; Emanuela Folco; Luigi Fontana; Robert A Gibson; Ranieri Guerra; Gordon H Guyatt; John Pa Ioannidis; Ann S Jackson; David M Klurfeld; Maria Makrides; Basil Mathioudakis; Alessandro Monaco; Chirag J Patel; Giorgio Racagni; Holger J Schünemann; Raanan Shamir; Niv Zmora; Andrea Peracino Journal: Adv Nutr Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 8.701
Authors: Stephen H Bradley; Nicholas J DeVito; Kelly E Lloyd; Georgia C Richards; Tanja Rombey; Cole Wayant; Peter J Gill Journal: J R Soc Med Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Romana Haneef; Amélie Yavchitz; Philippe Ravaud; Gabriel Baron; Ivan Oransky; Gary Schwitzer; Isabelle Boutron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Anthony Chauvin; David Moher; Doug Altman; David L Schriger; Sabina Alam; Sally Hopewell; Daniel R Shanahan; Alessandro Recchioni; Philippe Ravaud; Isabelle Boutron Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 2.692