Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41179407›Full record

ReviewJSES reviews, reports, and techniques2025

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of stemless total shoulder arthroplasty.

Brett M Biedermann, David McCavitt, Eric H Lin, Cailan L Feingold, Amir Fathi, Jacob L Kotlier, Frank A Petrigliano, Joseph N Liu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in JSES reviews, reports, and techniques, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Brett M BiedermannDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
David McCavittDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Eric H LinDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Cailan L FeingoldDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Amir FathiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Jacob L KotlierDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Frank A PetriglianoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Joseph N LiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Keck School of Medicine of USC, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The primary goal of this study was to identify and detail the incidence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of stemless component total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The secondary goal was to investigate general study characteristics and describe patterns in relation to spin. Methods: A search of PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to stemless component TSA. The abstracts included were assessed by two independent reviewers to determine the presence of the 15 most common types of spin bias using a predetermined methodology. General characteristics were extracted including study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Results: A total of 42 articles were identified, of which 12 were included for final analysis. At least 1 form of spin was observed in 10/12 (83.3%) studies. The most common type of spin was Type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies"), which was found in 7/12 (58.3%) studies. According to AMSTAR 2, 11/12 (91.7%) of studies had confidence ratings of "low" or "critically low" due to 1 or more critical flaws. No significant difference was found between AMSTAR 2 rating and spin type. Statistical analysis did not reveal significant associations between presence of the four most common types of spin (Type 5, Type 9, Type 10, and Type 12) and study characteristics. Conclusion: Spin is prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering stemless TSA. Reporting more favorable outcomes is the most common type, and physicians should be aware of this when making clinical decisions based on research.

Indexed as

Meta-analysisOrthopedicsQuality of reportingSpinStemless total shoulder arthroplastySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41179407
PMCPMC12573514

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.