A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract's conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect
A randomized trial of an editorial intervention to reduce spin in the abstract's conclusion of manuscripts showed no significant effect
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.014
复制
发表时间：
2021-02-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
Boutron, Isabelle
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ghannad, Mona;Yang, Bada;Boutron, Isabelle
目的：为了估计干预的效果相比，通常的同行评审过程中减少旋转摘要的结论的生物医学研究reports.Study设计和设置：我们进行了一个双臂，平行组随机对照试验的样本提交给BMJ开放的主要研究手稿。在干预组中，作者在同行评议员的评论旁边接受了简短的指导。我们评估了旋转的存在（主要结局）、旋转的类型和修订后摘要结论中的措辞变化。结果评估者对干预assignment.Results不知情：在184篇随机化的手稿中，108篇（54篇干预，54篇对照）被选为修订版，并可评估是否存在旋转。干预组（57%，31/54）中有旋转的稿件比例比对照组（63%，34/54）低6%（95% CI：24%降低至13%升高）。干预组和对照组中分别有34/54（63%）和26/54（48%）的手稿修改了摘要结论的措辞。四种预先规定的旋转类型涉及（i）选择性报告（干预组12人，对照组8人），（ii）包括没有证据支持的信息（9 vs. 9），和（iii）解释与研究结果不一致（14 vs. 18），以及（iv）不合理的实践建议（5 vs. 11）.结论：这些对作者的简短说明对减少修订后的摘要结论中的旋转没有统计学显著影响，并且基于置信区间，可以排除大效应的存在。应评估其他干预措施，以减少原始研究报告中的旋转。osf.io/xnuyt (C)2020作者（S）爱思唯尔公司出版这是一个在CC BY许可证下的开放获取文章（http：//creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/）。
Objective: To estimate the effect of an intervention compared to the usual peer-review process on reducing spin in the abstract's conclusion of biomedical study reports.Study Design and Setting: We conducted a two-arm, parallel-group RCT in a sample of primary research manuscripts submitted to BMJ Open. The authors received short instructions alongside the peer reviewers' comments in the intervention group. We assessed the presence of spin (primary outcome), types of spin, and wording change in the revised abstract's conclusion. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment.Results: Of the 184 manuscripts randomized, 108 (54 intervention, 54 control) were selected for revision and could be evaluated for the presence of spin. The proportion of manuscripts with spin was 6% lower (95% CI: 24% lower to 13% higher) in the intervention group (57%, 31/54) than in the control group (63%, 34/54). The wording of the revised abstract's conclusion was changed in 34/54 (63%) manuscripts in the intervention group and 26/54 (48%) in the control group. The four prespecified types of spin involved (i) selective reporting (12 in the intervention group vs. 8 in the control group), (ii) including information not supported by evidence (9 vs. 9), and (iii) interpretation not consistent with the study results (14 vs. 18), and (iv) unjustified recommendations for practice (5 vs. 11).Conclusion: These short instructions to authors did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing spin in revised abstract conclusions, and based on the confidence interval, the existence of a large effect can be excluded. Other interventions to reduce spin in reports of original research should be evaluated.Study registration: osf.io/xnuyt. (C) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).