Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited
Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.012
复制
发表时间：
2016-09-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Boutron, Isabelle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lazarus, Clement;Haneef, Romana;Boutron, Isabelle
目的：描述评估治疗干预的非随机研究报告中同行评审员对旋转的影响。研究设计和设置：这是研究前后的系统回顾和回顾。该样本由 2011 年 1 月 1 日至 2013 年 12 月 31 日期间在 BioMed Central Medical Series 期刊上发表的主要报告 (n = 128) 组成。主要结果指标如下：同行评审员在整个稿件中识别、删除或添加的旋转示例的数量和类型；同行评审员未发现的带有抽象结论的报告数量；同行评审前后抽象结论中的虚假信息水平（即无、低、中和高程度的虚假信息）。 结果：对于 70 份（55%）提交的稿件，同行评审员至少识别出一个虚假信息的例子。在同行评审员确定的 123 个独特的虚假示例中，82 个 (67%) 被作者完全删除。对于 19 篇文章 (15%)，同行评审员要求添加一些注释，对于 11 篇文章 (9%)，作者添加了注释。同行评审员未能在 97 份 (76%) 报告的抽象结论中识别出虚假陈述。结论：同行评审员在提交的手稿中发现了许多虚假陈述的例子。然而，它们对抽象结论中自旋变化的影响很小。 (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. 保留所有权利。
Objectives: To describe the impact of peer reviewers on spin in reports of nonrandomized studies assessing a therapeutic intervention.Study Design and Setting: This is a systematic review and retrospective before after study. The sample consists of primary reports (n = 128) published in BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. The main outcome measures are the following: number and type of spin examples identified, deleted, or added by peer reviewers in the whole manuscript; number of reports with spin in abstract conclusions not detected by peer reviewers; the level of spin (i.e., no, low, moderate, and high level of spin) in the abstract conclusions before and after the peer review.Results: For 70 (55%) submitted manuscripts, peer reviewers identified at least one example of spin. Of 123 unique examples of spin identified by peer reviewers, 82 (67%) were completely deleted by the authors. For 19 articles (15%), peer reviewers requested adding some spin, and for 11 (9%), the spin was added by the authors. Peer reviewers failed to identify spin in abstract conclusions of 97 (76%) reports.Conclusion: Peer reviewers identified many examples of spin in submitted manuscripts. However, their influence on changing spin in the abstract conclusions was low. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.