Assessment of "Spin" in the abstracts of systematic reviews in leading upper extremity surgery journals over the past 10 years: A cross-sectional methodological study.

Introduction: Practice guidelines in upper extremity surgery are heavily influenced by systematic reviews (SRs). SRs are prone to "spin"; misleading reporting that can distort interpretation, such as omitting individual study risk of bias when formulating study conclusions. This study aimed to assess the prevalence and types of spin employed in abstracts of SRs from leading upper extremity surgical journals. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis of SRs published between 2015 and 2025 was conducted across the three highest impact factor upper extremity journals. Included study abstracts were assessed for nine types of spin using a published framework by Yavchitz et al. (2016). Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the prevalence of spin and its associations with study bibliometric characteristics. Results: Spin was found in 28/54 included articles (51.9%). 21/54 (38.9%) studies demonstrated more than one type of spin. The most common type of spin employed was type 9 (claims of benefit despite reporting bias) (27/54, 50.0%). Conclusion: Over 50% of SRs published in leading upper extremity surgical journals demonstrated at least one form of spin in their abstracts. Claiming benefits despite a high risk of bias was most commonly employed. These findings highlight the need for robust reporting frameworks to ensure SRs are interpreted effectively. Level of evidence: IV.