Search

Background: It is critical that abstracts of systematic reviews transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of interventions without misleading the readers. This cross-sectional study assessed whether adverse effects of interventions were reported or considered in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions and whether spin on adverse effects was identified when comparing the abstracts with what was sought and reported in these reviews. Methods: This cross-sectional study (part 2 of 2) used the same sample of 98 systematic reviews orthodontic interventions as used in part 1. Eligible reviews were retrieved from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the 5 leading orthodontic journals between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Prevalence proportions were sought for 3 outcomes as defined in the published protocol. Univariable logistic regression models were built to explore associations between the presence of spin in the abstract and a series of predictors. Odds ratios (OR) 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were used to quantify the strength of associations and their precision. Results: 76.5% (75/98) of eligible reviews reported or considered (i.e., discussed, weighted etc.) potential adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract and the proportion of spin on adverse effects was 40.8% (40/98) in the abstract of these reviews. Misleading reporting was the predominant category of spin, i.e., 90% (36/40). Our explorative analyses found that compared to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews all 5 orthodontic journals had similar odds of the presence of spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. The odds of the presence of spin did not change over the sampled years (OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.16) and did not depend on the number of authors (OR: 0.93, 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.21), or on the type of orthodontic intervention (OR: 1.1, 95% CI: 0.45 to 2.67), or whether conflicts of interests were reported (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.68). Conclusion: End users of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions have to be careful when interpreting results on adverse effects in the abstracts of these reviews, because they could be jeopardized by uncertainties such as not being reported and misleading reporting as a result of spin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in implant dentistry. Study Design and Setting: Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of implant dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates in humans, with no language restriction. Three databases were searched from inception to May 2021. Main outcomes were prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in abstracts and full texts. Results: We identified 2481 SRMAs and 45 unique manuscripts were included. There was a low presence of spin in the abstracts and full text, except for adverse events, in which 51.1% (in the abstract) failed to mention any adverse event for summarized interventions. There was an adequate report of SRMAs in the full text except for prospective register (33.3% not reported). However, there was an incomplete report for most items in the abstract considering PRISMA‐A checklist. Conclusion: In general, the included SRMAs presented a (a) low prevalence of spin (except for adverse events in the abstract); (b) adequate completeness of reporting in the full text (except for prospective register); and (c) incomplete report for most items in the abstracts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in restorative dentistry., Methods: Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of restorative dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates of treatment in humans, with no language or year restriction. SRMAs performed with non-RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from inception to April 2022. Outcomes were the prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text. Data were reported through means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Spin in each item was considered low when occurring in less than 25% of the papers, moderate (25 to 75%), or high (more than 75%)., Results: We identified 7029 studies and 49 unique manuscripts were included. There was a moderate presence of spin in the abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% did not report adverse events; while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding completeness of reporting, there was poor reporting for most items in the abstract while there was an adequate report in full texts, except for register name and registration number (not reported in 32.7%)., Conclusions: Abstract of SRMAs in restorative dentistry should be better reported. Spin and poor reporting were more frequent in the abstracts, which misleads readers and could lead to inadequate clinical recommendations., Clinical Significance: Spin and incomplete reporting are a threat to evidence-based practice, especially in systematic reviews. Therefore, care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of spin in systematic reviews and other sources to prevent misinterpretation, which could lead to inadequate decisions and treatments., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that the inclusion of one manuscript in which the authors have co-authored may be perceived as a conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Objective: To explore how the results from the 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial were disseminated to the scientific community and online media., Design: A a systematic review of scholarly and public attention surrounding the DAPT study., Settings: Data were collected from the ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, PubMed Commons, EurekAlert, the DAPT study website (www.daptstudy.org) and the New England Journal of Medicine website (for scholarly attention) and Altmetric Explorer, Snap Bird, YouTube (for public attention) citing DAPT study results appearing from 16 November 2014 to 10 June 2015., Participants: No participants were involved in this study., Main Outcome Measure: Proportion of contents highlighting the increased risk of mortality and critical to the author's interpretation of the results., Results: We identified 425 items reported by seven sources; 164 (39%) disseminated the authors' interpretation via an electronic link or a reference, with no additional text. Among 81 items (19 %), the message favoured prolonged treatment and consequently overstated the article conclusions. Among 119 items (28 %), the text was uncertain about the benefit of prolonged treatment but was reported with no or inappropriate mention of increased risk of mortality. Only 34 items (8 %) were uncertain about the benefit of prolonged treatment and mentioned increased risk of mortality. In all, 27 items (6 %) did not favour prolonged treatment, and only 12 of these (3 %) clearly raised some concerns about the reporting of increased risk of death., Conclusion: Dissemination of the DAPT study results to the scientific community and on different media sources rarely criticised the interpretation of the study results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: 1.Isabelle Boutron is deputy director of the French Equator centre and coordinator of the MiRoR (Methods in Research on Research) project funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 676207. 2.Phlippe Ravaud is member of the steering committee of the Equator network and director of the French Equator centre. 3.Melissa Sharp is fellow in the MiRoR (Methods in Research on Research Project) funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 676207., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)