Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33291041›Full record

ArticleSexual medicine2020

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

Arjun K Reddy, Kaley Lulkovich, Ryan Ottwell, Wade Arthur, Aaron Bowers, Shafiq Al-Rifai, Katherine Cook, Drew N Wright, Micah Hartwell, Matt Vassar

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Sexual medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arjun K ReddyOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA. Electronic address: arjun.k.reddy96@gmail.com.
Kaley LulkovichOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Ryan OttwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Wade ArthurOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Aaron BowersOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Shafiq Al-RifaiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Katherine CookDepartment of Internal Medicine, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Drew N WrightSamuel J. Wood Library, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Micah HartwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences · USOklahoma State University Medical Center · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses-and particularly abstracts of such articles-for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts. In this study, we evaluated the use of spin (ie, the misreporting of study findings by overstating or selectively reporting efficacy results, minimizing harms, or making unwarranted clinical recommendations) in the abstracts of systematic reviews on erectile dysfunction.

methodsA search strategy was developed using the MEDLINE and Embase databases to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for erectile dysfunction. 2 investigators independently screened the titles and abstracts from the reviews for study inclusion. Investigators analyzed the included systematic reviews for 9 of the most severe types of spin using a previously developed classification scheme and rated them for methodological quality using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate.

resultsOur search returned 2,224 articles, of which 102 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. A total of 31.4% (32/102) of systematic reviews contained spin. 8 types of spin were identified in our sample. Type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes) and type 5 (conclusion claims beneficial effect despite high risk of bias) were the most common types of spin, each occurring in 10.8% (11/102) of abstracts. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the extracted study characteristics or methodological quality.

conclusionSpin was present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering erectile dysfunction treatments. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on erectile dysfunction treatment. Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Sex Med 2020;9:100284.

Indexed as

AbstractsErectile DysfunctionSexual DisordersSpin

Identifiers

PMID33291041
PMCPMC7930867
OpenAlexW3110814404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.