TY - JOUR
T1 - Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of obesity
AU - Faulkner, Jantzen J.
AU - Polson, Connor
AU - Dodd, Andrew H.
AU - Ottwell, Ryan
AU - Arthur, Wade
AU - Neff, Jenny
AU - Chronister, Justin
AU - Hartwell, Micah
AU - Wright, Drew N.
AU - Vassar, Matt
N1 - Funding Information:
Development and completion of this protocol was funded by the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Presidential Mentor-Mentee Research Fellowship Grant.
Funding Information:
Development and completion of this protocol was funded by the Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Presidential Mentor‐Mentee Research Fellowship Grant.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Obesity Society
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Objective: Spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of research findings, has the potential to affect patient care. Evidence suggests that spin is prevalent in obesity randomized controlled trials. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate spin in abstracts of systematic reviews covering obesity treatments. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to retrieve systematic reviews on obesity treatments. Each systematic review abstract was inspected for the nine most severe types of spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of study findings by exaggeration or omission, regardless of intentionality. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, triplicate fashion. Methodological quality was determined using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Results: Spin was identified in 20 (out of 200, 10%) abstracts, with spin type 5 (claiming efficacy despite high risk of bias among primary studies) being most common (11/200, 5.5%). Spin types 2 and 7, both related to unsupported efficacy claims, were not found. No associations were found between spin and extracted study characteristics. The methodological quality of the sample was rated as follows: critically low (23.0%), low (13.5%), moderate (60.5%), and high (3%). Conclusions: Although these findings demonstrate a low proportion of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews for obesity treatment; increased preventive measures may further reduce its presence.
AB - Objective: Spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of research findings, has the potential to affect patient care. Evidence suggests that spin is prevalent in obesity randomized controlled trials. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to evaluate spin in abstracts of systematic reviews covering obesity treatments. Methods: MEDLINE and Embase were searched to retrieve systematic reviews on obesity treatments. Each systematic review abstract was inspected for the nine most severe types of spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of study findings by exaggeration or omission, regardless of intentionality. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, triplicate fashion. Methodological quality was determined using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Results: Spin was identified in 20 (out of 200, 10%) abstracts, with spin type 5 (claiming efficacy despite high risk of bias among primary studies) being most common (11/200, 5.5%). Spin types 2 and 7, both related to unsupported efficacy claims, were not found. No associations were found between spin and extracted study characteristics. The methodological quality of the sample was rated as follows: critically low (23.0%), low (13.5%), moderate (60.5%), and high (3%). Conclusions: Although these findings demonstrate a low proportion of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews for obesity treatment; increased preventive measures may further reduce its presence.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111307189&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/oby.23192
DO - 10.1002/oby.23192
M3 - Article
C2 - 34314111
AN - SCOPUS:85111307189
SN - 1930-7381
VL - 29
SP - 1285
EP - 1293
JO - Obesity
JF - Obesity
IS - 8
ER -