SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2022
Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Robotic versus laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Is the robotic revolution stunting surgical skills?Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Regional variation and rising costs of groin hernia repairs in Australia: is there an urgent need for clinical consensus guidelines?ANZ journal of surgery · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe number of scientific articles published each year is increasing, resulting in greater competition to get work published. Spin is defined as specific reporting strategies used to distort the readers' interpretation of results so that they are viewed more favorable. However, prevalence of spin in studies comparing robot-assisted groin hernia repair with traditional methods is unknown. OBJECTIVES/
aimTo determine the frequency and extent of spin in studies assessing robot-assisted groin hernia repair.
methodsThis systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered at PROSPERO before data extraction. Database search included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central.
resultsOf 35 included studies, spin was present in 57%. Within these, 95% had spin present in the abstract and 80% in the conclusion of the article. There was no association between study size and spin (p > 0.05). However, presence of spin in studies positively minded towards robot-assisted hernia repair was higher (p < 0.001) compared with those against or being neutral in their view of the procedure. Furthermore, being funded by or receiving grants from Intuitive Surgical were associated with a higher prevalence of spin (p < 0.05) compared with those who were not.
conclusionSpin was found to be common in articles reporting on robot-assisted groin hernia repair, and presence of spin was higher in studies funded by or receiving grants from the robot company. This suggests that readers should be cautious when reading similar literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35024934What 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.