Spin is Prevalent in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Comparing Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy Outcomes.

purposeThis study aimed to assess the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing biceps tenodesis and tenotomy outcomes and to explore associations between spin and specific study characteristics.

methodsUsing Web of Science and PubMed databases, systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing outcomes of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy were identified. Abstracts were evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin as described by Yavchitz et al. and appraised using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Study characteristics were extracted, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines,funding status, and impact metrics such as journal impact factor, total number of citations, and average annual citations.

resultsA total of 16 studies were included, with spin detected in 81.3% of the abstracts. Type three spin was the most frequent (56.3%), followed by types six (43.8%), five (37.5%), nine (25.0%), two (12.5%), and four (6.3%). Spin types one, seven, and eight were not observed. AMSTAR 2 appraised 75% of the studies as 'low' quality, and 25% as 'critically low' quality. All studies had at least one critical flaw, with item 15 (investigation of publication bias) being the most frequent (93.8%). A strong positive correlation was found between AMSTAR 2 scores and citation counts (r = 0.821, p < 0.001). Studies with a higher number of spin incidents were significantly more likely to have an associated letter to the editor (p = 0.0043).

conclusionSevere types of spin were prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing biceps tenodesis and tenotomy. Data analysis suggests that abstracts with a higher incidence of spin tend to attract more scrutiny from the academic community. These findings highlight the need to enhance reporting standards.