Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36474894›Full record

ArticleOsteoarthritis and cartilage open2020

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering surgical management, or quality of life after surgical management, of osteoarthritis of the knee.

Parker Siex, William Nowlin, Ryan Ottwell, Wade Arthur, Jake Checketts, Jay Thompson, Travis Small, Brad Reddick, Drew N Wright, Micah Hartwell and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Osteoarthritis and cartilage open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Analysis ofOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors.

Parker SiexOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
William NowlinOffice 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.
Jake CheckettsDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Jay ThompsonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Travis SmallWarren Clinic, Saint Francis Hospital, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Brad ReddickSouthwest Orthopaedic and Reconstructive Specialists, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Drew N WrightSamuel J. Wood Library & C.V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA.
Micah HartwellOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.
Suhao ChenSchool of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Zhuqi MiaoCenter for Health Systems Innovation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA.
Matt VassarOffice of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, OK, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Our primary objective was to identify the prevalence of spin - misleading reporting practices that overemphasize benefit or underemphasize harm - within the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on surgical management of osteoarthritis of the knee. Methods: A search string was developed to search Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase for articles pertaining to surgical management, or quality of life after surgical management, of osteoarthritis of the knee. Titles and abstracts were screened according to our protocol, developed Results: Of the 1419 articles returned, 96 systematic reviews qualified for inclusion. 35.4% of the included abstracts (34/96) contained at least one type of spin with a total of 36 occurrences (two abstracts contained two types of spin). Selective reporting favoring benefit (type 3; 15/36, 41.7%) was the most prevalent followed by selective reporting of harms (type 6; 7/36, 19.4%). None of the abstracts contained spin types 2, 4, or 8. We found no significant association between spin and either AMSTAR-2 rating or extracted study characteristics. Conclusion: Of the included systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 35.4% contained spin in their abstract. To improve the reliability of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, researchers should act to minimize spin in future abstracts.

Indexed as

AbstractKnee osteoarthritisReporting biasSpinSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36474894
PMCPMC9718167

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.