Search

Objective: We investigated the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to assess the presentation and frequency of misrepresented research findings, also known as spin., Methods: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) for studies published from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019. We included randomized controlled trials with an ARDS intervention and a nonsignificant primary endpoint. Trial screening and data extraction was performed on all studies independently and in duplicate. The primary endpoint was to investigate the frequency and manifestation of spin in RCT abstracts. Our secondary endpoint was to investigate associations between funding source and spin., Results: Our PubMed search returned 766 articles with 37 meeting inclusion criteria. Spin was present in 14 (14/37, 37.8%; 95% CI 22.5%-55.2%) abstracts. The most common manifestations of spin were claiming benefit based on a significant secondary endpoint (6/14, 42.9%), followed by the use of 'trend' statements, such as 'trend toward significance' (2/14, 14.3%; 95% CI 1.8%-42.8%). The most common spin in abstract conclusions was in the form of claiming benefit due to a significant secondary endpoint (3/4, 75%; 95% CI 19.4%-99.4%). Our secondary endpoint did not identify a significant difference in the prevalence of spin in publicly funded (5/19, 26.3%; 95% CI 9.1%-51.2%) compared to privately funded (4/12, 33.3%; 95% CI 9.9%-65.1%) studies (p>.05)., Conclusions: RCTs of ARDS interventions with nonsignificant primary endpoints often included spin in the abstract. Spin in the abstract may influence clinician appraisal and interpretation of diagnostic or treatment modalities., (This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.)

Publication bias can arise in systematic reviews when unpublished data are omitted and lead to inaccurate clinical decision making and adverse clinical outcomes. By conducting searches of clinical trial registries (CTRs), researchers can create more accurate systematic reviews and mitigate the risk of publication bias. The aims of this study are: to evaluate CTR use in systematic reviews and meta-analyses within the minimally invasive surgical oncology (MISO) literature; to conduct a search of ClinicalTrials.gov for a subset of reviews to determine if eligible trials exist that could have been used. This is a cross-sectional study of 197 systematic reviews and meta-analyses retrieved from PubMed. Of 137 included studies, 18 (13.1%) reported searching a CTR. Our ClinicalTrials.gov search revealed that of the 25 randomly selected systematic reviews that failed to conduct a trial registry search, 16 (64.0%) would have identified additional data sources. MISO systematic reviews and meta-analyses do not regularly use CTRs in their data collection, despite eligible trials being freely available., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Subspecialty conferences are an important forum for disseminating the latest research relevant to clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify publication rates in podium and poster abstracts for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting and to identify the most common journals of publication and the reasons for nonpublication., Methods: Six hundred ten accepted abstracts (182 podium presentations, 428 posters) from the 2012-2014 AAHKS meetings were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. If an abstract could not be found after efforts by multiple searchers, the first author was emailed to determine where the research was published or why it was not published. For articles that were published, the journal, time to publication, and journal impact factor were noted., Results: The overall rate of publication was 71% (436/610). Podium presentations (164/182, 90%) were published at a higher rate than posters (271/428, 63%). The most common journal of publication was the Journal of Arthroplasty (218/436, 50%), followed by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (77/436, 18%) and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (40/436, 9%). Average time to publication was 14.5 months (range, -4 to 44 months) from the date of the conference in which it was presented., Conclusion: Presentations at the AAHKS annual meeting have an impressive rate of publication. The research presented at the meeting is impactful and high quality, warranting consideration for future publication., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)