ArticleJSES international2025
Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses involving glenoid augmentation in total shoulder arthroplasty.
Article in JSES international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Spin in scientific literature is defined as bias that overstates efficacy and/or underestimates harms of an experimental treatment. Glenoid augmentation is a technique used to correct glenoid bone deficiency during shoulder surgery. Literature on the outcomes of glenoid augmentation in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is limited, which may lead to a risk of bias in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this topic. The goal of this study is to identify the quantity and types of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of glenoid augmentation in TSA. Methods: A search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating outcomes of glenoid augmentation in TSA. The abstract of each study was assessed for the 15 most common types of spin using the method proposed by Yavchitz et al Study quality was assessed per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Fisher's exact tests were performed to investigate relationships between general characteristics and spin types. Results: Thirteen (81.3%) of the 16 included studies were found to have at least one form of spin. The most common type of spin was type 5 ("the conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies"), which appeared in 7 studies (43.8%). There was a statistically significant association between the presence of a conflict of interest and the lack of reporting funding sources. Conclusion: Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses studying glenoid augmentation with TSA. Misleading reporting is the most common category of spin.
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.