Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35918107›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

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

Audrey Wise, Deepika Mannem, Wade Arthur, Ryan Ottwell, Benjamin Greiner, Derek Srouji, Daniel Wildes, Micah Hartwell, Drew N Wright, Jam Khojasteh and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Audrey WiseOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA audrey.wise@okstate.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2353-7567
Deepika MannemArkansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Smith, Arkansas, USA.
Wade ArthurOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Ryan OttwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Benjamin GreinerThe University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Department of Internal Medicine, Galveston, Texas, USA.
Derek SroujiCardiology, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Daniel WildesCardiology, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Micah HartwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Drew N WrightSamuel J. Wood Library & C.V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
Jam KhojastehSchool of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Aviation, Oklahoma State University - Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
Matthew VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesSpin 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.

designWe performed a cross-sectional analysis searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to antiplatelet therapies following acute coronary syndrome on 2 June 2020. Data were extracted evaluating the presence of spin and study characteristics, including methodological quality as rated by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). All data extraction was conducted in a masked, duplicate manner from 2 June 2020 to 26 June 2020. PARTICIPANTS AND

settingNot applicable. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed abstracts of systematic reviews on antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and evaluated the prevalence of the nine most severe types of spin. We additionally explored associations between spin and certain study characteristics, including quality.

resultsOur searches returned 15 263 articles, and 185 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Of these 185 reviews, 31.9% (59/185) contained some form of spin in the abstract. Seven forms of spin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9) among the nine most severe were identified. No instances of types 6 or 8 were found. There were no statistically significant relationships between spin and the evaluated study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 appraisals.

conclusionsSpin was present in abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; subsequent studies are needed to identify correlations between spin and specific study characteristics. There were no statistically significant associations between spin and study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings; however, implementing changes will ensure that spin is reduced in the field of cardiology as well as other fields of medicine.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromeBiasPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsCross-Sectional StudiesHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsAdult cardiologyCoronary heart diseaseIschaemic heart diseaseMyocardial infarction

Identifiers

PMID35918107
PMCPMC9351322

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.