Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28892482›Full record

SynthesisPLoS biology2017

'Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review.

Kellia Chiu, Quinn Grundy, Lisa Bero

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PLoS biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. MASCC guideline: cannabis for cancer-related pain and risk of harms and adverse events.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Guideline
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Is Meat Industry Affiliation Associated With Study Conclusion in Nutrition Research? A Meta-Research Review.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2026
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

3 authors.

Kellia ChiuCharles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Quinn GrundyCharles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Lisa BeroCharles Perkins Centre, Faculty of Pharmacy, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1893-6651

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readers' decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research.

Indexed as

PropagandaPublishingBiomedical ResearchConflict of InterestPrejudicePublic Relations

Identifiers

PMID28892482
PMCPMC5593172

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.