Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions

Background: Spin -- the misrepresentation of a study’s actual findings -- has the potential to misguide a clinician’s understanding of a therapy’s efficacy or harm outcome. Spin has been previously demonstrated in randomized controlled trials from multiple fields of medicine and is in some ways incentivized due to certain results being more publishable. More recently, studies have demonstrated that spin exists in abstracts of systematic reviews, including dermatology. Objectives: This study's primary objective was to evaluate the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

Methods: We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin, AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal and other study characteristics.

Results: Our searches retrieved 2,456 studies, of which 113 were included for data extraction. Spin was found in 74.3% of our included studies (84/113). Spin type 6 — “selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm outcomes or analysis favoring the safety of the experimental intervention”— occurred most frequently (68/113, 60.2%). Six of the nine spin types were identified in our sample. The presence of spin was not associated with any specific study characteristics, including the methodological quality of the study.

Conclusions: Spin was found in the majority (over 70%) of abstracts for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis treatments. Steps should be taken to prevent spin to improve the quality of reporting in abstracts.