Spin or subjective interpretation of findings

This problem is addressed in ROBIS and MECIR. When picking out the most noteworthy findings from a systematic review, authors sometimes add 'spin' or headline grabbing statements that can misrepresent the totality of the evidence base. This may lead to interventions being unduly favoured or highlighted in order to avoid having neutral conclusions, which are less likely to get published. Subjective interpretation or influence in a review can also lead to similar review questions producing discordant or opposing conclusions.

Articles that support this problem:

How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine

2003 : Journal of the royal society of medicine

Multiple overlapping systematic reviews facilitate the origin of disputes: the case of thrombolytic therapy for pulmonary embolism

2018 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Several reasons explained the variation in the results of 22 meta-analyses addressing the same question

2019 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different?

2007 : Jbjs

The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews

2016 : Bmc medical research methodology

Analysis of decisions made in meta-analyses of depression screening and the risk of confirmation bias: a case study

2012 : Bmc medical research methodology

Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of "Spin" in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High-Impact Factor Journals

2020 : Clinical chemistry

Overinterpretation of research findings: evidence of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies

2017 : Clinical chemistry

Eight Out of Every Ten Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews

2020 : Journal of orthopaedic & sports physical therapy

A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity

2016 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Appraisal of systematic reviews on the management of peri-implant diseases with two methodological tools

2018 : Journal of clinical periodontology

No evidence-based practice by biased information from systematic reviews: the case of etanercept and infliximab for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis

2008 : Clinical & experimental rheumatology

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998

2001 : Bmj

Some problems with Cochrane reviews of diet and chronic disease

2005 : European journal of clinical nutrition

The quality of systematic reviews about interventions for refractive error can be improved: a review of systematic reviews

2017 : Bmc ophthalmology

Financial Conflicts of Interest and Reporting Bias Regarding the Association between Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

2014 : Plos medicine

Quality and clarity in systematic review abstracts: an empirical study

2016 : Research synthesis methods

Perils of systematic reviews

2005 : Cmaj

Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Meniere's Disease

2021 : Annals of otology, rhinology and laryngology

Over 30% of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Rotator Cuff Tear Treatments Contained Spin in the Abstract

2021 : Arthroscopy

Letter to the Editor - Not even the top general medical journals are free of spin: A wake-up call based on an overview of reviews

2021 : Journal of clinical epidemiology

Assessment of spin in abstracts of Endodontic Systematic Reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2022. Are we in need of more transparent interpretation of findings?

2022 : International endodontic journal