Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

We have identified € spin' in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the € use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever 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'. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 1 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

Psychiatry
Industry
Psychology
Randomized Controlled Trials
Language
Clinical Trials
Guidelines

Keywords

  • bias
  • data reporting
  • psychiatry
  • psychiatry in literature
  • research methodology

Cite this

@article{8afd4bd75ef54686884880525e12630c,
title = "Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals",
abstract = "We have identified € spin' in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the € use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever 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'. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56{\%} (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2{\%}) titles, 24 (21{\%}) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1{\%}) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15{\%} of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10{\%}). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95{\%} CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.",
keywords = "bias, data reporting, psychiatry, psychiatry in literature, research methodology",
author = "Samuel Jellison and Will Roberts and Aaron Bowers and Tyler Combs and Jason Beaman and Cole Wayant and Matt Vassar",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111176",
language = "English",
journal = "BMJ evidence-based medicine",
issn = "2515-446X",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals

AU - Jellison, Samuel

AU - Roberts, Will

AU - Bowers, Aaron

AU - Combs, Tyler

AU - Beaman, Jason

AU - Wayant, Cole

AU - Vassar, Matt

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - We have identified € spin' in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the € use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever 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'. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

AB - We have identified € spin' in abstracts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with nonsignificant primary endpoints in psychiatry and psychology journals. This is a cross-sectional review of clinical trials with nonsignificant primary endpoints published in psychiatry and psychology journals from January 2012 to December 2017. The main outcome was the frequency and manifestation of spin in the abstracts. We define spin as the € use of specific reporting strategies, from whatever 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'. We have also assessed the relationship between industry funding and spin. Of the 486 RCTs examined, 116 were included in our analysis of spin. Spin was identified in 56% (n=65) of those included. Spin was found in 2 (2%) titles, 24 (21%) abstract results sections and 57 (49.1%) abstract conclusion sections. Evidence of spin was simultaneously identified in both results and conclusions sections in 15% of RCTs (n=17). Twelve articles reported industry funding (10%). Industry funding was not associated with increased odds of spin in the abstract (unadjusted OR: 1.0; 95% CI: 0.3 to 3.2). We found no relationship between industry funding and spin in abstracts. These findings raise concerns about the effects spin may have on clinicians. Further steps could be taken to address spin, including inviting reviewers to comment on the presence of spin and updating Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines to contain language discouraging spin.

KW - bias

KW - data reporting

KW - psychiatry

KW - psychiatry in literature

KW - research methodology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85070724547&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111176

DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111176

M3 - Article

C2 - 31383725

AN - SCOPUS:85070724547

JO - BMJ evidence-based medicine

JF - BMJ evidence-based medicine

SN - 2515-446X

ER -