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

Ref ID 526
First Author T. A. McGrath
Journal CLINICAL CHEMISTRY
Year Of Publishing 2017
URL https://watermark.silverchair.com/clinchem1353.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAsswggLHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggK4MIICtAIBADCCAq0GCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQM_460lqHOyAApsYCOAgEQgIICfrZbfeFGfuUo5FB7e8SY9DhkhnFIp5vOdBYSeIr5G54_xLnfCc3-o-lVLKnduKlPwHoxFc883zPKWm0G726bbuMZDNxk0hYykNM8H7FfCLn1sXKe8fCzQN_uTMqsZJHpfpgtc-7CZ0Mkmr3ZFxVv2T3-bsF2c1IL5X1C1X3OFzR2g4FSwoWpRnCpo4Cef2Bp4NSKcKC3KYI4G9-DyRijhkg6Njt5IhgZT06MaKU-NKGvgcWPG1A8f3dbSpkeY4MSQCxN3pvblN-P8Skje_NIlXHx6f5J_BbbQXkjELXsnr424sKiRzB4fTPgPDz_wPDABA-Ksq3V2UXK0LiqoE4XhHM97HBB74HzqpjtNO1SvRih_76y58_rDbxS3tAShCGe2XgAsr2jLvVGf5FyiyHW_j1FtF1d5uhQU0BnCOh6ThAd1W95zf3oRYKDjqtKAV1Gwc5JygAjbkqHI932Dh4CQNboEVjaVH8_AdHoEvfbKyUvFl5-PjSjhynrk9DgVxlBNWaDHB_jnJbeMkBT55XC6ugv0HalG3HWI1v1UU7NE76pIW2Ww7FQnXRWhugtSXghYpHSJmvW6gWScHnAk4nezEHZ283i2IaTXVwSYDIUq_oyMr_RC4tIW0NApQOUlm1_hVMyfUYzlmTXuFokOlznfglZcH81cMFGox3MDb4QDLG2zoUqkEy9N9wz3LoewPty7jzZj6_dIFUZGYWRfymBZQLhFeFE_KQPLBIjTkESGIUpzSVyRuiJ-Q2ujHp3KoBL5Z2atYRYJmTxcekEOLzScb6VqiYM6g469wUYYjQ5TYE6Jjj4cPRXQasaVACS4R_qx13f-S3tuUZUQmlohnq_
Keywords • Diagnostic
• Spin
• Risk of bias
Problem(s) • Meta-analyses and forest plots presented without considering risk of bias / quality
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Canada
Aim To assess the frequency of overinterpretation in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies published in MEDLINE between December 2015 to January 2016.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings 72% of reviews contained at least one actual form of overinterpretation in the abstract, and 69% in the full-text.
Number of systematic reviews included 112
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 795
Treatment impacted Yes
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Yes
Interpretation impacted description The most common forms of overinterpretation were a “positive conclusion, not reflecting the reported summary accuracy estimates,” in 49% of abstracts and 50% of full-texts and a “positive conclusion, not taking high risk of bias and/or applicability concerns into account,” in 42% abstracts and 23% full-texts.