ReviewCureus2025
Spin in the Titles and Abstracts of Allergy and Immunology Randomized Controlled Trials With Nonsignificant Outcomes.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In scientific reporting, 'spin' refers to presenting neutral or negative outcomes in a manner that infers favorable results. Spin can be especially problematic in the abstracts of randomized control trials, leading to an incorrect interpretation of trial outcomes, and potentially impacting subsequent studies, patient care, and policy decisions. The present study aims to evaluate the presence of spin in the abstracts of registered randomized control trials published in allergy and immunology journals. A systematic search of the PubMed database was performed to identify randomized controlled trials of human subjects registered in a clinical trial registry with a test and control group and a nonsignificant primary endpoint. A total of 1,248 articles were screened and 66 abstracts met full inclusion criteria. Thirty-five of the 66 (53%) abstracts were found to contain one or more elements of spin, among which 11 (31.4%) had spin in the title, 29 (82.9%) in the abstract results, and 30 (85.7%) in the abstract conclusion. Industry-sponsored trials did not contain more spin compared to other funding sources (p=0.62). High rates of spin may adversely affect the interpretation and integration of new research. Careful evaluation is recommended when reviewing abstracts lacking statistically significant primary outcomes.
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.