Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34987034›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Spin in the neurosurgical trauma literature: prevalence and associated factors - a systematic review protocol.

João Vitor Miranda Porto Oliveira, André Luiz Freitas Oliveira Júnior, Angelos G Kolias, Wellingson S Paiva, Davi Jorge Fontoura Solla

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

João Vitor Miranda Porto OliveiraBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil j.vp.oliveira10@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2001-6793
André Luiz Freitas Oliveira JúniorBahiana School of Medicine and Public Health, Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7816-3051
Angelos G KoliasDepartment of Neurosurgery, Addenbrooke's Hospital, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3992-0587
Wellingson S PaivaNIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Davi Jorge Fontoura SollaNIHR Global Health Research Group on Neurotrauma, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5092-6595

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSpin is defined as an inaccurate interpretation of results, intentionally or not, leading to equivocal conclusions and misdirecting readers to look at the data in an overly optimistic way. Previous studies have shown a high prevalence of spin in scientific papers and this systematic review aims to investigate the nature and prevalence of spin in the neurosurgical trauma literature. Any associated factors will be identified to guide future research practice recommendations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations will be followed. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) that enrolled only patients with traumatic brain injury and investigated any type of intervention (surgical or non-surgical) will be eligible for inclusion. The MEDLINE/PubMed database will be searched for articles in English published in 15 top-ranked journals. Spin will be defined as (1) a focus on statistically significant results not based on the primary outcome; (2) interpreting statistically non-significant results for a superiority analysis of the primary outcome; (3) claiming or emphasising the beneficial effect of the treatment despite statistically non-significant results; (4) conclusion focused in the per-protocol or as-treated analysis instead of the intention-to-treat results; (5) incorrect statistical analysis; (6) republication of a significant secondary analysis without proper acknowledgement of the primary outcome analysis result. Traditional descriptive statistics will be used to present RCT characteristics. Standardised differences between the groups with or without spin will be calculated. The variables with a standardised difference equal or above 0.2 and 0.5 will be considered weakly and strongly associated with spin, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not involve primary data collection and patients will not be involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/H3FGY.

Indexed as

Research DesignDatabases, FactualHumansPrevalenceSystematic Reviews as Topicneurologyneurosurgerystatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID34987034
PMCPMC8734005

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.