ReviewGlobal spine journal2024
Evaluation of Spin in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques and Standard Microdiscectomies for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation.
Review in Global spine journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Critical Assessment of Evidence Quality of Meta-Analyses Comparing Sacral 2 Alar-Iliac Fixation with Iliac Screws for Adult Spinal Deformity: An Umbrella Review with Emphasis on Methodological Limitations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Reporting bias is prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to endoscopicJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of stemless total shoulder arthroplasty.JSES reviews, reports, and techniques · 2025Review
- Analysis ofOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Review
- Spin is Prevalent in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Comparing Biceps Tenodesis and Tenotomy Outcomes.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Spin is Prevalent in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Most Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Reporting Clinical Outcomes of the Remplissage Procedure Have at Least 1 Form of Spin.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designSystematic review.
objectivesSpin in scientific literature is defined as bias that overstates efficacy and/or underestimates harms of procedures undergoing review. While lumbar microdiscectomies (MD) are considered the gold standard for treating lumbar disc herniations (LDH), outcomes of novel procedures are being weighed against open MD. This study identifies the quantity and type of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of LDH interventions.
methodsA search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the outcomes of MD against other LDH interventions. Each included study's abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin, with full texts reviewed during cases of disagreement or for clarification. Full texts were used in the assessment of study quality per AMSTAR 2.
resultsAll 34 included studies were observed to have at least 1 form of spin, in either the abstract or full text. The most common type of spin identified was type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies"), which was observed in ten studies (10/34, 29.4%). There was a statistically significant association between studies not registered with PROSPERO and the failure to satisfy AMSTAR type 2 (
conclusionMisleading reporting is the most common category of spin in literature related to LDH. Spin overwhelmingly tends to go in the positive direction, with results inappropriately favoring the efficacy or safety of an experimental intervention.
Identifiers
What 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.