Abstract
Background: Spin -- a way of reporting that distorts the true findings – has not been investigated in systematic review abstracts on psoriasis treatments.
Objective: To investigate the prevalence of spin in systematic review abstracts and whether study characteristics were associated with spin.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase to obtain our sample. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the 9 most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. The methodological quality was assessed to explore potential relationships between spin and study quality.
Results: Search queries returned 3200 articles, which included 173 systematic reviews. Spin was present in the abstract of 37 (21.4%) of these reviews. We identified 8 of the 9 spin types in our sample, and spin type 6 was the most frequently identified (19/173, 11%). The presence of spin in the abstract was not associated with methodological quality or any study characteristic.
Limitations: Evaluation of spin is subjective. We were further limited by sample size and the nature of our study design. Conclusions: Spin was present in systematic review abstracts. Preventing spin is essential for improving future systematic reviews.
Objective: To investigate the prevalence of spin in systematic review abstracts and whether study characteristics were associated with spin.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase to obtain our sample. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the 9 most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. The methodological quality was assessed to explore potential relationships between spin and study quality.
Results: Search queries returned 3200 articles, which included 173 systematic reviews. Spin was present in the abstract of 37 (21.4%) of these reviews. We identified 8 of the 9 spin types in our sample, and spin type 6 was the most frequently identified (19/173, 11%). The presence of spin in the abstract was not associated with methodological quality or any study characteristic.
Limitations: Evaluation of spin is subjective. We were further limited by sample size and the nature of our study design. Conclusions: Spin was present in systematic review abstracts. Preventing spin is essential for improving future systematic reviews.
Original language | American English |
---|---|
Pages | 50 |
State | Published - 22 Feb 2021 |
Event | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Days 2021: Poster presentation - Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Campus, Tulsa, United States Duration: 22 Feb 2021 → 26 Feb 2021 |
Conference
Conference | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Days 2021 |
---|---|
Country/Territory | United States |
City | Tulsa |
Period | 22/02/21 → 26/02/21 |
Keywords
- Psoriasis
- Spin
- Systematic Review
- Psoriasis Treatment