Spin the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Regarding the Treatment of Meniere's Disease

Ref ID	829
First Author	B. Heigle
Journal	ANNALS OF OTOLOGY, RHINOLOGY & LARYNGOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2021
URL	https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00034894211000493?casa_token=J162T6TBxnYAAAAA:3SC2jWki5u-vYFmpKAM6iq9ILiOtjm8zUduW6WdFg4Flt4LkesQogCyi2uWTOxh447wRtbTEOtupCA
Keywords	• Spin • Abstract / summary • Otolaryngology • Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s)	• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings • Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries • Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included	36
Summary of Findings	Of the 36 included studies, 22 (61.1%) abstracts contained spin while 14 (38.9%) did not. The most common spin types were selective reporting of benefit (10/36, 27.8%) or harm (8/36, 22.2%). Other types of spin occurred when findings were extrapolated to the global improvement of the disease (5/36, 13.9%), beneficial effects were reported with high risk of bias in primary studies (3/36, 8.3%), and when beneficial effects were extrapolated to an entire class of interventions (1/36, 2.8%). Abstracts containing spin were substantively associated with studies of critically low methodological quality compared with studies with low and moderate quality. No studies had a methodological rating of high quality. No associations were observed between spin and intervention types, journal recommendation of adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or funding. There was a negative correlation (r=−.31) between abstract word limit and presence of spin.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes