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