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
Number of systematic reviews included 112
Summary of Findings 72% of reviews contained at least one actual form of overinterpretation in the abstract, and 69% in the full-text.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Yes
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes