Assessment of "Spin" in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews in Leading Arthroplasty Journals Over the Past 10 Years: A Cross-Sectional Methodological Study.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) are vital for evidence consolidation in clinical research, utilized for their robust, reproducible methodology. SRs are prone to misrepresentation as they are based on primary studies and the interpretation of their authors. This issue can be particularly significant in arthroplasty, where procedures significantly impact patient quality of life. We aim to determine the prevalence of spin and its associated study characteristics in the top 3 highest impact English arthroplasty specific journals. Methods: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase for SRs and meta-analyses published from March 26, 2015, to March 26, 2025. Two assessors classified spin types based on Yavchitz et al. (2016). Descriptive statistics were computed to determine spin prevalence, and chi-square (χ2) analysis evaluated associations with bibliometric factors. Results: Spin was present in 48 of 52 SRs (92.3%), with severe spin in 33 of 52 (63.5%). The most common types included type 5 (claims of benefit despite high risk of bias) in 45 of 52 (86.5%) and type 9 (claims of benefit despite reporting bias) in 32 of 52 (61.5%). Type 9 spin was significantly more common in SRs involving randomized controlled trials (88.2%) compared to nonrandomized studies (48.6%, Conclusions: Over the past decade, more than 90% of SRs published in high-impact arthroplasty journals exhibited spin in their abstracts. The most common form involved overstating treatment benefits despite high risk of bias in primary studies, while spin related to reporting bias was significantly more frequent in SRs of randomized evidence.