ArticleBMC medical research methodology2025
Spin Bias in randomized controlled trials of botulinum toxin for bruxism management: a meta-epidemiologic study.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo perform a quantitative and qualitative analysis of spin bias in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) focusing on botulinum toxin (BTX-A) for managing bruxism. STUDY DESIGN AND PROTOCOL: This is a meta-epidemiologic study. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework. STUDY SELECTION: We included RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of BTX-A for managing bruxism, associated or not with signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorders. The outcomes were changes in pain and bruxism events. Spin bias was investigated in abstract and main text. The frequency of spin bias was assessed, and a qualitative analysis was conducted. The study was classified as effective if the outcome analyzed was statistically significant (p-value 0.05) and reached the minimum important difference of 20% and ineffective if the reported outcome was statistically nonsignificant or the study did not report the p-value or the results did not reach the minimum important difference of 20%.
resultsAn overall frequency of 59.4% spin bias was identified in eight included RCTs. The conclusion in the main text (87.5%) was the section with the highest frequency of spin bias. In the qualitative analysis, the most common strategies identified were inadequate extrapolation to a large population (30.61%), inadequate implication for clinical practice (20.41%), and misleading reporting (12.25%).
conclusionThere is a high frequency of spin bias in RCTs that evaluated BTX-A for bruxism management. Close to 90% of the selected RCTs presented spin bias in the main text's conclusion. The most common spin was the inadequate extrapolation of the results. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Applying BTX into the temporalis did not reduce muscle activity and the results for masseter injections remain controversial. It seems that BTX-A injections can reduce pain from two weeks to one year. It is not possible to have certainty about the efficacy and safety of using BTX-A to reduce pain and bruxism events.
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.