Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046532›Full record

ArticleTobacco prevention & cessation2021

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of treatments and interventions for smoking cessation.

Morgan Garrett, Tremayne Koochin, Ryan Ottwell, Wade Arthur, Taylor C Rogers, Micah Hartwell, Elizabeth Chen, Alicia Ford, Drew N Wright, Meghan Sealey and 2 more

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

Article in Tobacco prevention & cessation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Morgan GarrettOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Tremayne KoochinOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Ryan OttwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Wade ArthurOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Taylor C RogersOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Micah HartwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Elizabeth ChenDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Alicia FordDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Drew N WrightSamuel J. Wood Library and C. V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, Cornell University, New York, United States.
Meghan SealeyDepartment of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, United States.
Lan ZhuDepartment of Statistics, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, United States.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Center for Health Sciences, Oklahoma State University, Tulsa, United States.
Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences · USOklahoma State University · USCornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSmoking cessation treatments and available evidence continue to evolve. To stay current with the latest research, physicians often refer to abstracts of systematic reviews. Because abstracts of systematic reviews may have direct effects on patient care, the information within them should be free of 'spin'. Spin is a specific way of reporting, intentional or not, to highlight that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment in terms of efficacy or safety is greater than that shown by the results (i.e. overstate efficacy and/or understate harm).

methodsWe searched systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on interventions and treatments for smoking cessation. Full-text screening, data extraction, evaluation of spin, and quality assessment were conducted in masked, duplicate fashion. Study and journal characteristics were also recorded to determine whether they were associated with the presence of spin.

resultsA total of 200 systematic reviews that met inclusion criteria were included in the final analyses. Spin occurred in 3.5% (7/200) of the systematic review abstracts included in our sample. No study characteristics were significantly associated with spin.

conclusionsOf the reviewed abstracts in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 96.5% of those that focused on smoking cessation were free of spin. However, the existence of spin warrants further steps to improve the scientific accuracy of abstracts on smoking cessation treatments. By identifying and acknowledging the presence of spin in systematic reviews, we hope to increase awareness about reporting practices in an ultimate effort to improve the integrity of scientific research as a whole.

Indexed as

abstractsmeta analysissmoking cessationSPINsystemic review

Identifiers

PMID34046532
PMCPMC8135573
OpenAlexW3162141087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.