ReviewCaries research2023
Assessment of
Review in Caries research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Distortion in the Communication of Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: The Spin Strategy in Multiple Sclerosis Trials.Annals of neurology · 2026Pooled it
- "Spin" in randomized controlled trials of digital implant surgery: a meta-epidemiologic study.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Article
- Data Availability Statements of Publications in Journals Indexed in the Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Medicine Category of Journal Citation Reports: A Meta-Research Study.International dental journal · 2026Review
- Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Incomplete reporting and spin in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Caught in the Web of Words: Do LLMs Fall for Spin in Medical Literature?Proceedings of machine learning research · 2025Article
- Spin Bias in randomized controlled trials of botulinum toxin for bruxism management: a meta-epidemiologic study.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to assess the prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes and to assess the risk indicators which may be associated with spin. Any original publication reporting a two-arm RCT in dental caries with clearly identified statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published from January 1, 2015, until October 28, 2022, were included. PubMed was searched electronically to identify the eligible publications. The prevalence of spin in titles and abstracts were assessed and categorized into spin patterns based on a predetermined classification scheme. The association between spin and the potential risk indicators at study, author, journal, institutional, and national levels was assessed. A total of 234 eligible RCT publications were included. The prevalence of spin in the titles and abstracts was 3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2–6%) and 79% (95% CI: 74–84%), respectively. The most common spin patterns in the results and conclusion sections, respectively, were results focusing on statistically significant within-group comparisons (23%), and conclusions focusing only on statistically significant results without acknowledgment of statistically nonsignificant results for the primary outcomes (26%). The spin was significantly associated with number of study centers (single-center vs. multicenter) (OR = 2.131; 95% CI: 1.092–4.158; p = 0.03), trial designs (nonparallel designs vs. parallel designs) (OR = 0.395; 95% CI: 0.193–0.810; p = 0.01), and overall H index of institutions for last authors (OR = 0.998; 95% CI: 0.996–0.999; p < 0.01), while it was not significantly associated with the other indicators. In the RCT publications with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes in dental caries, the prevalence of spin may be low in the titles but high in the abstracts. Single-center studies with parallel designs and a lower overall H index of institutions for last authors may be more likely to have spin in the abstracts.
Indexed as
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.