SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
The presence of spin is commonly found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.
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.
- 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
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
purposeAs robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (RA-UKA) gains popularity, debate continues over its superiority to conventional UKA (C-UKA). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have examined this, but concerns exist about spin bias in their abstracts, which can significantly alter perceptions of a treatment's efficacy and safety. This study aims to evaluate the presence of spin bias in the abstracts of SRMAs comparing RA-UKA and C-UKA, and to assess the methodological quality of all included SRMAs using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception to 7 February 2025 for SRMAs that assessed RA-UKA. Eligible studies assessed at least one outcome of RA-UKA. Included studies were evaluated for the presence of spin in their abstracts using the methods outlined by Yavchitz et al. All full texts were subsequently assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool.
resultsAt least one element of abstract spin was identified in 12 of 16 included studies (75%). The most common category of spin was 'misleading reporting' in the form of selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favouring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, observed in ten studies (63%). With the exception of one study with an overall 'low' confidence rating, all remaining studies were of 'critically low' A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) confidence. No study characteristics were significantly associated with the presence of abstract spin.
conclusionThe majority of RA-UKA SRMAs contained spin, most commonly in the form of misleading reporting and interpretation, and were rated 'critically low' in quality by AMSTAR-2. In a growing field like RA-UKA where clinical decision-making is influenced by SRMA results and conclusions, clinicians should critically review full texts to minimise the impact these biases may have on their 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.