Observational studyBMJ evidence-based medicine2025
Do infographics 'spin' the findings of health and medical research?
Observational study in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spin reporting is common in pilot and feasibility trials in hip and knee arthroplasty: a methodological analysis of a cross-sectional sample.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2026Article
- Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Development of the Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the prevalence of 'spin', and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin.
designCross-sectional observational study. DATA SOURCE: Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts). EXPOSURES: Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text.
results119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found.
conclusionsNearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics.
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.