ArticleTrials2013
"Spin" in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.
Article in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spin in Published Reports of Tinnitus Randomized Controlled Trials: Evidence of Overinterpretation of Results.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Level and Prevalence of Spin in Published Cardiovascular Randomized Clinical Trial Reports With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2019Pooled it
- Overinterpretation and misreporting of prognostic factor studies in oncology: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2018Pooled it
- Causal language and strength of inference in academic and media articles shared in social media (CLAIMS): A systematic review.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Influence of overstated abstract conclusions on clinicians: a web-based randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 2017Trial
- Misleading readers without lies: understanding spin and its relevance to acupuncture research.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Spin reporting is common in pilot and feasibility trials in hip and knee arthroplasty: a methodological analysis of a cross-sectional sample.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Caught in the Web of Words: Do LLMs Fall for Spin in Medical Literature?Proceedings of machine learning research · 2025Article
- Spin in the Titles and Abstracts of Allergy and Immunology Randomized Controlled Trials With Nonsignificant Outcomes.Cureus · 2025Review
- Reporting Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to the Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: The Presence of Spin in the Abstract.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study.Caries research · 2023Review
- Linguistic spin in randomized controlled trials about age-related macular degeneration.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2022Article
- Abstracts for reports of randomised trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Promotion or education: a content analysis of industry-authored oral health educational materials targeted at acute care nurses.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Analysis of Funding Source and Spin in the Reporting of Studies of Intravitreal Corticosteroid Therapy for Diabetic Macular Edema: A Systematic Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2020Review
- Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.Research integrity and peer review · 2019Article
- Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2018Article
- The over-representation of significant p values in abstracts compared to corresponding full texts: A systematic review of surgical randomized trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSpin in the reporting of randomized controlled trials, where authors report research in a way that potentially misrepresents results and mislead readers, has been demonstrated in the broader medical literature. We investigated spin in wound care trials with (a) no statistically significant result for the primary outcome and (b) no clearly specified primary outcome.
methodsWe searched the Cochrane Wounds Group Specialised Register of Trials for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible studies were: Parallel-group RCTs of interventions for foot, leg or pressure ulcers published in 2004 to 2009 (inclusive) with either a clearly identified primary outcome for which there was a statistically non-significant result (Cohort A) or studies that had no clear primary outcome (Cohort B).We extracted general study details. For both Cohorts A and B we then assessed for the presence of spin. For Cohort A we used a pre-defined process to assess reports for spin. For Cohort B we aimed to assess spin by recording the number of positive treatment effect claims made. We also compared the number of statistically significant and non-significant results reported in the main text and the abstract looking specifically for spin in the form of selective outcome reporting.
resultsOf the 71 eligible studies, 28 were eligible for Cohort A; of these, 71% (20/28) contained spin. Cohort B contained 43 studies; of these, 86% (37/43) had abstracts that claimed a favorable treatment claim. Whilst 74% (32/43) of main text results in Cohort B included at least one statistically non-significant result, this was not reflected in the abstract where only 28% contained (12/43) at least one statistically non-significant result.
conclusionsSpin is a frequent phenomenon in reports of RCTs of wound treatments. Studies without statistically significant results for the primary outcome used spin in 71% of cases. Furthermore, 33% (43/132) of reports of wound RCTs did not specify a primary outcome and there was evidence of spin and selective outcome reporting in the abstracts of these. Readers should be wary of only reading the abstracts of reports of RCTs of wound treatments since they are frequently misleading regarding treatment effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.