| Ref ID | 396 |
| First Author | A. Yavchitz |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing | 2016 |
| URL | https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(16)00057-3/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Spin • General medical • Inference • Abstract / summary |
| Problem(s) |
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Survey/questionnaire of authors opinions/practices |
| First Author Country | France |
| Aim | To identify and classify spin (i.e., a description that overstates efficacy and/or understates harm) in systematic reviews and to rank spin in abstracts of systematic reviews according to their severity (i.e., the likelihood of distorting readers’ interpretation of the results). |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 13 types of spin specific to the systematic review design were identified. Spin was classified into three categories: (1) misleading reporting, (2) misleading interpretation, and (3) inappropriate extrapolation. Spin ranked as the most severe by the 122 people who participated in the survey were (1) recommendations for clinical practice not supported by findings in the conclusion, (2) misleading title, and (3) selective reporting. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |