- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries
- Assessment of spin in abstracts of Endodontic Systematic Reviews with meta-analyses published between 2010 and 2022. Are we in need of more transparent interpretation of findings?
| Ref ID | 868 |
| First Author | D.G. Giannakoulas |
| Journal | INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iej.13832 |
| Keywords |
Abstract / summary Dentistry Spin Non-Cochrane reviews |
| Problem(s) |
Spin or subjective interpretation of findings Errors in systematic review abstracts or plain language summaries |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 186 |
| Summary of Findings | From 186 included abstracts of systematic reviews including meta-analyses in the field of endodontics indexed in PubMed from January 1, 2010, to April 16, 2022. Spin was detected in 125 abstracts (67.2%), for one or more domains. Most abstracts were affected by more than one type of spin (91/125; 72.8%). There was evidence that abstracts of meta-analyses of non-significant findings had 60% lower odds for inclusion of spin (odds ratio, OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.83; p = .04), after adjusting for year, journal type and number of authors. |
| 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 |