| Ref ID | 1065 |
| First Author | P.A.J. Steegmans |
| Journal | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS |
| Year Of Publishing | 2023 |
| URL | https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-023-02269-3 |
| Keywords |
• Abstract / summary • Non-Cochrane reviews • Dentistry • Harms • Cochrane • Spin |
| Problem(s) |
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings • Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries • Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | The Netherlands |
| Aim | To assess whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 98 included systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions indexed on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and from 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. 76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin (90% (36/40). Compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68). |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 98 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 323 |
| Treatment impacted | Not Applicable |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |