'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review
'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pbio.2002173
复制
发表时间：
2017-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Bero, Lisa
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chiu, Kellia;Grundy, Quinn;Bero, Lisa
在科学文献中，spin指的是歪曲对结果的解释并误导读者，以便从更有利的角度看待结果的报道做法。生物医学研究中的自旋现象会对进一步研究、临床实践和卫生政策的发展产生负面影响。本系统综述旨在探讨生物医学文献中自旋的性质和流行程度。我们检索了MEDLINE、PreMEDLINE、Embase、Scopus，并手工检索了生物医学文献中包含至少1个结局的自旋测量的所有报告的参考文献列表。两名独立编码员提取了关于报告特征及其纳入的研究和所有与自旋有关的结果的数据。结果被归纳成主题的旋转相关的结果，并提出作为一个叙事综合。我们使用元分析来分析spin与行业赞助研究的关系。我们纳入了35份报告，调查了临床试验、观察性研究、诊断准确性研究、系统评价和荟萃分析中的谎言。旋转的性质因研究设计而异。自旋流行率的最高（但也是最大）变异性出现在试验中。一些用于歪曲结果的常见做法包括从统计上不显著的结果中减损和不恰当地使用因果语言。一些作者假设资金来源是与自旋有关的一个因素；然而，结果是不确定的，可能是由于纳入的论文的异质性。需要进一步的研究来评估虚假新闻对读者决策的影响。编辑和同行审稿人应熟悉其研究领域中虚假新闻的流行和表现，以确保准确解释和传播研究。
In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers' decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research.