ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2023
Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Three in every four systematic reviews and meta-analyses on concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and anterolateral complex procedures present at least one type of spin in the abstract.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- The presence of spin is commonly found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Assessment of 'spin' in the abstracts of systematic reviews in leading orthopaedic surgery journals over the past 10 years: a cross-sectional methodological study.EFORT open reviews · 2026Article
- Assessment of "Spin" in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews in Leading Arthroplasty Journals Over the Past 10 Years: A Cross-Sectional Methodological Study.Arthroplasty today · 2025Article
- Reporting Bias Is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Related to Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Review
- Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving glenoid augmentation in total shoulder arthroplasty.JSES international · 2025Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To identify the quantity and types of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) outcomes and to characterize the studies with spin to determine if any patterns exist. Methods: This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In August 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus databases were searched using the terms "ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction" AND "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis." Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin derived from a previously established methodology. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Results: In total, 122 studies were identified during the preliminary search, of which 19 met the inclusion criteria. Each study had at least 1 form of spin. 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") (7/19, 36.8%). AMSTAR type 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the RoB [risk of bias] in individual studies that were included in the review?") was associated with both a lower Clarivate Impact Factor ( Conclusions: Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigate the outcomes of UCLR. Clinical Relevance: Spin has been identified in peer-reviewed articles published on various topics, including many in orthopaedics. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses contain the most comprehensive evidence regarding a clinical question, so it is important to identify spin that may be included in these reports. Greater efforts are needed to ensure that the abstracts of papers accurately represent the results in the full text.
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.