SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
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.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline 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
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
purposeSpin is a form of bias that misrepresents research findings, potentially influencing clinical decisions and patient care. This meta-research study evaluates the prevalence and types of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR). A secondary aim is to assess review quality per AMSTAR-2 criteria and associations between spin and review characteristics.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE[Ovid] in May 2024 identified eligible reviews. Two reviewers independently assessed the nine most severe types of spin and methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Review characteristics, including publication year, total citations, average yearly citations and journal impact factor, were analyzed for associations with spin.
resultsOf 24 included reviews, 75% (18/24) contained at least one form of spin, with Type 3 spin, 'Selective reporting or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes favoring the experimental intervention', being the most common (62.5%, 15/24). Reviews with spin had a significantly more recent median publication year (p = 0.011), while those without spin had significantly higher total citation counts (p = 0.021). No significant differences were observed in average yearly citations or impact factors between groups. Reviews with three or more types of spin were published more recently than those with fewer (p = 0.007), with no significant differences in total citations, average yearly citations or impact factor. Most reviews (91.7%) were rated as critically low-quality using AMSTAR-2, with substantial inter-reviewer agreement (κ = 0.839).
conclusionSpin is highly prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating ACLR with and without LET or ALLR, particularly in recent publications. Given that many reviews exhibit critically low methodological quality, efforts should focus on strengthening adherence to reporting standards and reducing spin to ensure the publication of unbiased evidence that informs clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
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.