ReviewCochrane evidence synthesis and methods2026
Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review.
Review in Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods, 2026. 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.
- Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: spin involves misrepresenting or misreporting study findings in the abstract of an article. The abstract is the most easily accessible part of the article and may determine if an article is read, purchased or the findings are implemented into practice. Trials using new technologies, such as robotics, may be particularly vulnerable to spin due to the high costs associated with research and development. Objective: To identify and assess abstract spin in physiotherapy clinical trials investigating robotic interventions. Design: Meta-research review. Methods: We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in August 2024 for two-armed clinical trials investigating robotic interventions compared to nonrobotic interventions, in any patient population. Article screening and data extraction were performed by two people independently. Quality assessment was performed using the PEDro scale with PEDro scores ≥ 6 deemed high quality. Abstract spin was assessed by two independent raters using a 7-item checklist. Spin items were scored "present," "not present" or "not applicable." Data were presented as counts and percentages. Results: We included 160 trials, of which 95% were in neurological physiotherapy and 61% of trials were high quality. Almost all trials (97%) contained at least one item of spin. Most often abstracts failed to mention adverse events (90%) or overenthusiastically interpretated non-significant (primary) outcomes (77%). One percent of abstracts clearly omitted negative primary outcomes, and 23% of abstracts recommended treatments without clinically important effects on the primary outcomes. These low spin percentages were due to many trials not reporting any negative finding and trials not providing a clinical recommendation in the abstract. Conclusion: Ninety-seven percent of abstracts in trials investigating robotic interventions in physiotherapy contained spin. Academic journals should be conscious of the high prevalence of abstract spin in robotic trials and consider implementing stricter author guidelines or peer-review practices to ensure abstracts truly reflect the study findings.
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.