ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2026
"Spin" in randomized controlled trials of digital implant surgery: a meta-epidemiologic study.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background"Spin" refers to the manipulation of language to suggest benefits when none exist, commonly observed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study investigates the extent, strategies, and reporting quality of spin in digital dental implant RCT abstracts, and explores study characteristics associated with spin.
methodsRCTs related to digital dental implants were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. Spin was identified using predefined strategies, and logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with its occurrence. Reporting quality was evaluated with the original 16-item CONSORT checklist for abstracts.
resultsWe analyzed 19,795 articles, and a total of 127 abstracts were finally included in the reporting quality analyses, with spin identified in 51 abstracts (40.2%), where 24 abstracts (18.9%) exhibited spin in both "Results and conclusions" sections. A significantly lower presence of spin was observed in studies reporting exact p-values (OR: 0.317; 95% CI: 0.134-0.727; p = 0.007) and shorter abstract word limits for journal submission (moderate: OR = 0.185, p = 0.01; low: OR = 0.138, p = 0.02).
conclusionsThe prevalence of spin in digital implant surgery RCTs is concerning. Given that busy clinicians often rely solely on abstracts for clinical interpretation, such distorted reporting may mislead practitioners into adopting expensive or complex digital technologies without robust evidence of superiority. It is essential for all stakeholders to prioritize transparent reporting to prevent biased clinical decision-making and safeguard the integrity of evidence-based dentistry.
Identifiers
42286167What 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.