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 AND LARYNGOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2021
URL https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00034894211000493?casa_token=J162T6TBxnYAAAAA:3SC2jWki5u-vYFmpKAM6iq9ILiOtjm8zUduW6WdFg4Flt4LkesQogCyi2uWTOxh447wRtbTEOtupCA
Keywords Abstract / summary
Spin
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? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes