ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2019
The SSSPIN study-spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- A Scoping Review of the Causal Pathways and Biological Mechanisms Linking Nutrition Exposures and Health Outcomes.Current nutrition reports · 2024Article
- Several methods for assessing research waste in reviews with a systematic search: a scoping review.PeerJ · 2024Article
- Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Analysis of 567,758 randomized controlled trials published over 30 years reveals trends in phrases used to discuss results that do not reach statistical significance.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Seven recommendations to rescue the patients and reduce the mortality from COVID-19 infection: An immunological point of view.Autoimmunity reviews · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify and calculate the prevalence of spin in studies of spin.
designMeta-research analysis (research on research).
setting35 studies of spin in the scientific literature.
main outcome measuresSpin, categorised as: reporting practices that distort the presentation and interpretation of results, creating misleading conclusions; discordance between results and their interpretation, with presentation of favourable conclusions that are not supported by the data or results; attribution of causality when study design does not support it; and over-interpretation or inappropriate extrapolation of results.
resultsFive (14%) of 35 spin studies contained spin categorised as reporting practices that distort the presentation and interpretation of results (n=2) or categorised as over-interpretation or inappropriate extrapolation of results (n=3).
conclusionSpin occurs in research on spin. Although researchers on this topic should be sensitive to spinning their findings, our study does not undermine the need for rigorous interventions to reduce spin across various research fields. CONCLUSION WITH SPIN: Our hypothesis that spin will be less prevalent in spin studies than in studies on other topics has been proven. Spin scholars are less likely to spin their conclusions than other researchers, and they should receive substantial resources to launch and test interventions to reduce spin and research waste in reporting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.