TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on breast cancer treatment, screening, and quality of life outcomes: A cross-sectional study
T2 - A cross-sectional study
AU - Flores, Holly
AU - Kannan, Dhivya
AU - Ottwell, Ryan
AU - Arthur, Wade
AU - Hartwell, Micah
AU - Patel, Nekita
AU - Bowers, Aaron
AU - Po, William
AU - Wright, Drew N.
AU - Chen, Suhao
AU - Miao, Zhuqi
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Presidential Mentor-Mentee Research Fellowship Grant. The funder of this study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, writing of the report, or decision to submit it for publication. All authors had full access to the data in the study and the corresponding author had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication
Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - Background: While spin – i.e., a reporting practice that embellishes positive findings and understates negative ones – is prevalent in randomized controlled trials, it has yet to be investigated in the context of systematic reviews. Owing to their significant role in clinical decision making and patient outcomes, this study seeks to identify and evaluate the severity of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews on breast cancer. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on breast cancer treatment, screening, and post-treatment quality of life between 1987 and 2020. Investigators independently screened for study selection, extracted spin data, and appraised the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2. In this cross-sectional study, 11,717 articles were identified, of which 581 met inclusion criteria. Following randomization, the first 200 were evaluated and 21 % contained evidence of at least one of nine types of spin. Results: We identified spin types one, three, four, five, and six but not two, seven, eight, or nine. In particular, pharmacological (AOR 4.36, 95 % CI [1.18–16.01]) and surgical (AOR, 10.10 95 % CI [1.60−63.68]) intervention-type studies were highly associated with spin. There were no other associations between study characteristics and spin. While these results are significant, they contain a wide confidence interval and the reader should draw conclusions accordingly. Conclusions: There is evidence of spin in meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding breast cancer treatment and quality of life outcomes. Accordingly, readers of systematic review abstracts related to breast cancer could be misled by distorted presentation of findings. Policy summary: This study aims to improve the standards of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to cancer.
AB - Background: While spin – i.e., a reporting practice that embellishes positive findings and understates negative ones – is prevalent in randomized controlled trials, it has yet to be investigated in the context of systematic reviews. Owing to their significant role in clinical decision making and patient outcomes, this study seeks to identify and evaluate the severity of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews on breast cancer. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on breast cancer treatment, screening, and post-treatment quality of life between 1987 and 2020. Investigators independently screened for study selection, extracted spin data, and appraised the methodological quality of reviews using AMSTAR 2. In this cross-sectional study, 11,717 articles were identified, of which 581 met inclusion criteria. Following randomization, the first 200 were evaluated and 21 % contained evidence of at least one of nine types of spin. Results: We identified spin types one, three, four, five, and six but not two, seven, eight, or nine. In particular, pharmacological (AOR 4.36, 95 % CI [1.18–16.01]) and surgical (AOR, 10.10 95 % CI [1.60−63.68]) intervention-type studies were highly associated with spin. There were no other associations between study characteristics and spin. While these results are significant, they contain a wide confidence interval and the reader should draw conclusions accordingly. Conclusions: There is evidence of spin in meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding breast cancer treatment and quality of life outcomes. Accordingly, readers of systematic review abstracts related to breast cancer could be misled by distorted presentation of findings. Policy summary: This study aims to improve the standards of reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to cancer.
KW - Abstracts
KW - Bias
KW - Breast cancer
KW - Spin
KW - Systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85098518491&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcpo.2020.100268
DO - 10.1016/j.jcpo.2020.100268
M3 - Article
C2 - 35559938
AN - SCOPUS:85098518491
VL - 27
JO - Journal of Cancer Policy
JF - Journal of Cancer Policy
SN - 2213-5383
M1 - 100268
ER -