Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials

C. Wayant, D. Margalski, K. Vaughn, M. Vassar

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Purpose: Spin, the misrepresentation of research findings, in clinical trial abstract has been shown to influence how oncologist rate a drug's efficacy. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed for clinical trials published in ten key journals in 2017. Our primary objectives were to assess the frequency and manifestations of spin in the abstracts of those clinical trials that measured both overall survival and at least one surrogate efficacy endpoints. Results: 124 trials were included for analysis. We found evidence of spin in 46 of 124 (37.1%, 95% CI 29.1%–45.9%) trial abstracts. Spin in the abstract results was most often due to authors emphasizing a statistically significant subgroup analysis (n = 6). Spin in the abstract conclusions was most often due to authors relying on a statistically significant surrogate endpoint to highlight the bioefficacy of the intervention (n = 17). Conclusion: Spin is prevalent in the abstracts of oncology clinical trials that measure OS and a surrogate endpoint. The conclusion sections of abstracts were most prone to contain spin. When OS was the primary endpoint, spin was primarily used to distract from the nonsignificant OS data. To mitigate unintentional hype for cancer therapies, we recommend authors structure their conclusions around patient-important outcomes.

Original languageEnglish
Article number102821
JournalCritical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Volume144
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2019

Fingerprint

Clinical Trials
Biomarkers
PubMed
Survival
Research
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Oncologists

Keywords

  • Abstracts
  • Bias
  • Overall survival
  • Randomized controlled trial
  • Spin
  • Surrogate endpoints

Cite this

@article{54ed50838661477782d2b5e1838c3a5f,
title = "Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials",
abstract = "Purpose: Spin, the misrepresentation of research findings, in clinical trial abstract has been shown to influence how oncologist rate a drug's efficacy. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed for clinical trials published in ten key journals in 2017. Our primary objectives were to assess the frequency and manifestations of spin in the abstracts of those clinical trials that measured both overall survival and at least one surrogate efficacy endpoints. Results: 124 trials were included for analysis. We found evidence of spin in 46 of 124 (37.1{\%}, 95{\%} CI 29.1{\%}–45.9{\%}) trial abstracts. Spin in the abstract results was most often due to authors emphasizing a statistically significant subgroup analysis (n = 6). Spin in the abstract conclusions was most often due to authors relying on a statistically significant surrogate endpoint to highlight the bioefficacy of the intervention (n = 17). Conclusion: Spin is prevalent in the abstracts of oncology clinical trials that measure OS and a surrogate endpoint. The conclusion sections of abstracts were most prone to contain spin. When OS was the primary endpoint, spin was primarily used to distract from the nonsignificant OS data. To mitigate unintentional hype for cancer therapies, we recommend authors structure their conclusions around patient-important outcomes.",
keywords = "Abstracts, Bias, Overall survival, Randomized controlled trial, Spin, Surrogate endpoints",
author = "C. Wayant and D. Margalski and K. Vaughn and M. Vassar",
year = "2019",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.102821",
language = "English",
volume = "144",
journal = "Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology",
issn = "1040-8428",

}

Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials. / Wayant, C.; Margalski, D.; Vaughn, K.; Vassar, M.

In: Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology, Vol. 144, 102821, 12.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials

AU - Wayant, C.

AU - Margalski, D.

AU - Vaughn, K.

AU - Vassar, M.

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - Purpose: Spin, the misrepresentation of research findings, in clinical trial abstract has been shown to influence how oncologist rate a drug's efficacy. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed for clinical trials published in ten key journals in 2017. Our primary objectives were to assess the frequency and manifestations of spin in the abstracts of those clinical trials that measured both overall survival and at least one surrogate efficacy endpoints. Results: 124 trials were included for analysis. We found evidence of spin in 46 of 124 (37.1%, 95% CI 29.1%–45.9%) trial abstracts. Spin in the abstract results was most often due to authors emphasizing a statistically significant subgroup analysis (n = 6). Spin in the abstract conclusions was most often due to authors relying on a statistically significant surrogate endpoint to highlight the bioefficacy of the intervention (n = 17). Conclusion: Spin is prevalent in the abstracts of oncology clinical trials that measure OS and a surrogate endpoint. The conclusion sections of abstracts were most prone to contain spin. When OS was the primary endpoint, spin was primarily used to distract from the nonsignificant OS data. To mitigate unintentional hype for cancer therapies, we recommend authors structure their conclusions around patient-important outcomes.

AB - Purpose: Spin, the misrepresentation of research findings, in clinical trial abstract has been shown to influence how oncologist rate a drug's efficacy. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed for clinical trials published in ten key journals in 2017. Our primary objectives were to assess the frequency and manifestations of spin in the abstracts of those clinical trials that measured both overall survival and at least one surrogate efficacy endpoints. Results: 124 trials were included for analysis. We found evidence of spin in 46 of 124 (37.1%, 95% CI 29.1%–45.9%) trial abstracts. Spin in the abstract results was most often due to authors emphasizing a statistically significant subgroup analysis (n = 6). Spin in the abstract conclusions was most often due to authors relying on a statistically significant surrogate endpoint to highlight the bioefficacy of the intervention (n = 17). Conclusion: Spin is prevalent in the abstracts of oncology clinical trials that measure OS and a surrogate endpoint. The conclusion sections of abstracts were most prone to contain spin. When OS was the primary endpoint, spin was primarily used to distract from the nonsignificant OS data. To mitigate unintentional hype for cancer therapies, we recommend authors structure their conclusions around patient-important outcomes.

KW - Abstracts

KW - Bias

KW - Overall survival

KW - Randomized controlled trial

KW - Spin

KW - Surrogate endpoints

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074832786&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.102821

DO - 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.102821

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:85074832786

VL - 144

JO - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

JF - Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

SN - 1040-8428

M1 - 102821

ER -