| Keywords |
• Spin • Non-Cochrane reviews • Cochrane • Diagnostic |
| Problem(s) |
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings • Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To assess the frequency of “spin” in both abstracts and full text reports of systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies published in Medline between January 2010 to January 2019. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | At least one actual overinterpretation practice was present in the abstract in 46% of included reviews and in the full-text report in 38% of included reviews. Reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were less likely to contain actual overinterpretation in the abstract or the full-text report than reviews in other high-impact journals |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 137 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1242 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | Two investigators independently applied criteria for assessing overinterpretation and conclusion positivity to each included systematic review. |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | Common overinterpretations were "positive conclusion, not reflecting the reported summary accuracy estimates"; "positive conclusion, not taking high risk of bias and/or applicability concerns into account"; and "positive conclusion, not taking heterogeneity into account". |
