An Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses on the Treatment of Psoriasis: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

Spin is a way of reporting that distorts the true findings; we sought to investigate the prevalence of spin in systematic review abstracts on psoriasis treatments and whether study characteristics were associated with spin. We searched MEDLINE and Embase to obtain our sample. Screening and data extraction were performed in a masked duplicate fashion.

The presence of spin in systematic reviews focused on diabetic neuropathy: A cross-sectional analysis.

Background: Spin-the misrepresentation of a study's actual results-has the potential to alter a clinician's interpretation of the study's findings and therefore could affect patient care. Studies have shown spin frequently occurs in abstracts of systematic reviews from a variety of other medical disorders and specialties.

Aims: Our primary aim was to evaluate whether the nine most severe types of spin occurred in systematic review abstracts' concerning diabetic neuropathy treatments.

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinical trials. Little is known about spin in systematic reviews.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Introduction: Spin - the beautification of study results to emphasise benefits or minimise harms - is a deceptive reporting strategy with the potential to affect clinical decision-making adversely. Few studies have investigated the extent of spin in systematic reviews. Here, we sought to address this gap by evaluating the presence of the nine most severe forms of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews on treatments for postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

Financial conflicts of interest during meetings of the cardiovascular and renal drugs advisory committee.

Context: The Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRDAC) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews safety and efficacy data for cardiovascular and renal drugs, ultimately making recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs for approval. The Open Public Hearing segment of these meetings allows for patients, advocates, healthcare professionals, clinical trialists, and members of the public to provide testimony, which often results in expressing their preference for, or against, drug approval. Prior to providing testimony, the public speakers are highly encouraged to disclose any financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) with the sponsor or other groups.

Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Melanoma Therapies: Cross-sectional Analysis.

Background: Spin is defined as the misrepresentation of a study's results, which may lead to misperceptions or misinterpretation of the findings. Spin has previously been found in randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of acne vulgaris treatments and treatments of various nondermatological conditions.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to quantify the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of melanoma therapies and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Covering Treatments for Achilles Tendon Ruptures.

Background: Approximately 18 in every 100 000 people have experienced a ruptured Achilles tendon. Despite the prevalence of this condition, treatment options remain contested.

Hypothesis/purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of spin-reporting practices that may exaggerate benefit or minimize harm-in abstracts of systematic reviews related to Achilles tendon repair.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of emergency medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to assess for spin - a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms - within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM).

Methods: PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of obesity.

Objective: Spin, i.e., the misrepresentation of research findings, has the potential to affect patient care.

Spin Infrequently Occurs in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews For The Pharmacological Treatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.

Aims: Currently, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that spin - the misinterpretation and distortion of a study's findings - is common in different fields of medicine. To our knowledge, no study has investigated its presence in systematic reviews focused on diabetic therapies.

Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study by searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews focused on pharmacologic treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Evaluating spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on cannabis use disorder.

Clinicians rely upon abstracts to provide them quick synopses of research findings that may apply to their practice. Spin can exist within these abstracts that distorts or misrepresents the findings. Our goal was to evaluate the level of spin within systematic reviews (SRs) focused on the treatment of cannabis use disorder (CUD).

Spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.

Context: "Spin" is a form of bias that involves highlighting study results in a way that presents the conclusions about benefit or efficacy beyond the scope of the data. Spin in the abstract of published studies has the potential to affect patient care, making investigations about its presence and prevalence important for readers.

Objectives: To evaluate the most severe types of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and metaanalyses focused on percutaneous coronary intervention.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation.

Introduction: Smoking cessation treatments and available evidence continue to evolve. To stay current with the latest research, physicians often refer to abstracts of systematic reviews. Because abstracts of systematic reviews may have direct effects on patient care, the information within them should be free of 'spin'.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of orthopedic trauma literature: A cross-sectional review.

Objectives: A cross-sectional analysis of orthopedic trauma randomized controlled trial (RCT) abstracts to assess the frequency and manifestations of spin, the misrepresentation or distortion of research findings, in orthopedic trauma clinical trials.

Methods: The top 5 orthopedic trauma journals were searched from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2017. RCTs with nonsignificant endpoints (p > .

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Atopic Dermatitis Treatments and Interventions.

Background: Spin - the misrepresentation of a study's results - has been identified in abstracts of studies focused on a variety of disorders from multiple fields of medicine.

Objectives: This study's primary objective was to evaluate the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of atopic dermatitis for the nine most severe forms of spin.

Methods: We systematically searched Embase and MEDLINE for systematic reviews of atopic dermatitis therapies.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on Tinnitus.

Hypothesis: The objective was to investigate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of tinnitus. We hypothesized that spin would be present in these articles and a significant relationship would exist between spin usage and extracted study characteristics.

Background: Spin, the misrepresentation of study findings, can alter a clinician's interpretation of a study's results, potentially affecting patient care.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on treatments of alcohol use disorder.

: With 14.4 million U.S.

Over 30% of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Rotator Cuff Tear Treatments Contained Spin in the Abstract.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatments for rotator cuff tears and whether various study and publishing journal characteristics were associated with the presence of spin.

Methods: A search strategy was developed for Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for rotator cuff tears. For an article to be included, it must meet the following criteria: (1) the article must be a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis, (2) the article must pertain to the treatment of rotator cuff tears, (3) the article must only contain human subjects, and (4) the article must be accessible in English.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies on opioid use disorder.

Spin, or the inappropriate formatting of information to emphasize certain outcomes, should not be present in research. This study focuses on identifying and characterizing the presence of spin in systematic review and meta-analysis abstracts that focus on the treatment of opioid use disorder. Search strategies were developed to identify studies pertaining to the treatment of opioid use disorder.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on cataract therapies.

Purpose: Spin-the misrepresentation of study findings such that the beneficial effects of an intervention are magnified beyond what the results actually show-is a reporting practice that has been shown to influence perceptions of treatment efficacy and clinical decision making. We evaluated the extent of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews of cataract surgery and its complications. We also evaluated whether particular study attributes were associated with spin.

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

Objectives: To identify, quantify, and characterize the presence of spin-specific strategies leading to misrepresentation of study results-in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Ménière's disease treatment.

Methods: Using a cross-sectional design, we searched MEDLINE and Embase on May 28, 2020, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on Ménière's disease treatment. Returned searches were screened, and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate fashion.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures.

Background: Research has shown that many physicians rely solely on abstracts to make clinical decisions. However, many abstracts have been shown to be misleading. The primary objective of this study was to identify the prevalence of spin - bias towards particular results - within the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures, one of the most common osteoporotic fractures among elderly patients.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Treatments for Glaucoma.

Purpose: Spin - the misrepresentation of the study's actual findings - carries the ability to distort a reader's perception of a treatments' full benefits and risks. Recent studies have suggested that spin is common in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews focused on treatments for a variety of medical disorders. Therefore, our primary objective was to evaluate the prevalence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to glaucoma treatments.

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

Introduction: It is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses-and particularly abstracts of such articles-for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts.