ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018
Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 94 papers, 4 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
94 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 261 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying spin bias of nonsignificant findings in biomedical studies.BMC research notes · 2023Pooled it
- Overinterpretation of findings in machine learning prediction model studies in oncology: a systematic review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2023Pooled it
- Spin in the Scientific Literature on Bariatric Endoscopy: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.Obesity surgery · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic search and qualitative review of reporting bias of lifestyle interventions in randomized controlled trials of diabetes prevention and management.Nutrition journal · 2018Pooled it
- Trial
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Representational Veracity in Data Science Health Research: Targets, Proxies, Labels, and Descriptors.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Causal overclaiming is widespread in the social sciences.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- When AI agrees with us: large language models as amplifiers of scientific bias.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Article
- Go figure: transparency in neuroscience images preserves context and clarifies interpretation.Nature methods · 2026Review
- Quantifying the prevalence and impact of overreaching causal claims in social science.Nature human behaviour · 2026Article
- Spin and Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Comparing Single- and Multiple-Visit Endodontic Treatment: A Meta-Research Study.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026Review
- "Indole-3-acetic acid promotes differentiation while suppressing proliferation in human intestinal epithelial cells": a Letter to the Editor.Human cell · 2026Article
- Assessment of "Spin" in the abstracts of systematic reviews in leading upper extremity surgery journals over the past 10 years: A cross-sectional methodological study.Shoulder & elbow · 2026Review
- Statistical Competence and Editorial Policies in Biomedical Publications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Review
- Factors influencing the trustworthiness of non-randomized studies of interventions: a survey of international experts.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Misleading readers without lies: understanding spin and its relevance to acupuncture research.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Article
- Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Assessment of spin within diagnostic accuracy meta-analyses published in top pathology journals: a cross-sectional study.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
34 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward analysis thereof. Authors have broad latitude when writing their reports and may be tempted to consciously or unconsciously "spin" their study findings. Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers. This article, based on a literature review, reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by "beautification" of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some types of spin on readers' interpretation and research dissemination. We also discuss why researchers would spin their reports and possible ways to avoid it.
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.