Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26462565›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2015

Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention.

Clément Lazarus, Romana Haneef, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Promoting informed health choices: the long and winding road.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2025
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Clément LazarusMETHODS Team, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France. clement.lazarus@aphp.fr.
Romana HaneefMETHODS Team, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France. romana.haneef@aphp.fr.
Philippe RavaudMETHODS Team, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France. philippe.ravaud@aphp.fr.
Isabelle BoutronMETHODS Team, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics Sorbonne Paris Cité (CRESS), UMR 1153, INSERM, Paris, France. isabelle.boutron@htd.aphp.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpin represents specific reporting strategies, either intentional or unintentional, to convince the reader that the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. The objectives of this study were to 1) develop a classification of spin specific to non-randomized studies assessing an intervention and 2) estimate the prevalence of spin in abstracts of reports of such studies.

methodsIn a first step, we developed a specific classification of spin for non-randomized studies by a literature review and pilot study. In a second step, 2 researchers trained in the field of methodology evaluated the prevalence of spin in the abstract of all non-randomized studies assessing an intervention published in the BioMed Central Medical Series journals between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013. All disagreements were resolved by consensus. We also determined whether the level of spin in abstract conclusions was high (spin reported without uncertainty or recommendations for further trials), moderate (spin reported with some uncertainty or recommendations for further trials) or low (spin reported with uncertainty and recommendations for further trials).

resultsAmong the 128 assessed articles assessed, 107 (84%) had at least one example of spin in their abstract. The most prevalent strategy of spin was the use of causal language, identified in 68 (53%) abstracts. Other frequent strategies were linguistic spin, inadequate implications for clinical practice, and lack of focus on harm, identified in 33 (26%), 25 (20%), and 34 (27%) abstracts respectively. Abstract conclusions of 61 (48%) articles featured a high level of spin.

conclusionAbstract of reports of non-randomized studies assessing an intervention frequently includes spin. Efforts to reduce the prevalence of spin in abstract for such studies are needed.

Indexed as

BiasResearch DesignAbstracting and IndexingHumans

Identifiers

PMID26462565
PMCPMC4604617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.