ArticleJournal of spine surgery (Hong Kong)2025
Reporting bias is prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to endoscopic
Article in Journal of spine surgery (Hong Kong), 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic decompression (ED) and microscopic decompression (MD) are newer minimally invasive approaches for surgical treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS). However, the absence of large, high-quality randomized controlled trials raises concerns for the potential of bias, or spin, in studies evaluating these techniques. This study aims to analyze the prevalence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses comparing ED and MD as treatments for LSS. Methods: Studies were identified using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analysis guidelines searching PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), and Scopus. Articles included were: (I) a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis; (II) degenerative etiology; (III) human subjects; (IV) available in English. Abstracts were graded for incidence of the 15 most common types of spin, and full texts were reviewed using AMSTAR 2 classification. General demographics were identified, including study title, author, journal of publication, year of publication, level of evidence (LOE), study design, and funding. Fisher's exact test was used to compare study metrics. Results: Ten studies were included, all of which contained at least one type of spin. Spin type 12 ("Conclusion claims equivalence or comparable effectiveness for non-statistically significant results with a wide confidence interval") and type 3 (Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention) were the most common forms of spin, found in 5/10 (50%) of the included studies. All 10 studies received a confidence rating of "critically low" according to the AMSTAR 2 domain. There were no significant associations between incidence of spin type and year of publication, journal of publication, number of citations, LOE, funding, Clarivate impact factor, or ScopusCiteScore. Conclusions: Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating ED versus MD. All ten manuscripts evaluated received a low quality rating according to the AMSTAR 2 domain.
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.