Abstract
Purpose
Pioneering works on the quality appraisal of RCTs have recognized and addressed most of the issues that affect the RCT quality but some issues such as “Writers’ bias” or “Spin” are yet to be sorted out. Spin, particularly in the abstracts, is a potential source of deception to the readers. The purpose of this study is to grade the RCTs of arthroscopy and sports medicine based on a spin in their abstracts, analyze the prevalence of spin, and explore methods to remove spin.
Methods
250 recent RCTs from the top 5 arthroscopy and sports medicine journals were selected. Baseline data of the articles were collected. Consort Adherence Score (CAS) was calculated. The abstracts of the RCTs were graded using the Level Of Confidence (LOC) grading tool developed by the Orthopaedic Research Group. The association of the spin grade with other characteristics of the articles was analyzed.
Results
The median CAS for the included studies was 9 (IQR 8–10). It was found that only 49.6% (n = 124) articles had high LOC with no or one non-critical spin in the abstract. 20.8% (n = 52) had Moderate LOC with more than one non-critical spin. 19.6% (n = 49) had at least one critical spin and 10% (n = 25) had more than one critical flaw making their results have Low and Critically Low LOC, respectively. Of the ten variables analyzed in multivariate regression analysis, it was found that CAS was the only significant factor that determines the level of confidence in the abstract of RCTs
Conclusion
Spin is prevalent in abstracts of sports medicine and arthroscopy journals with 50.4% having some form of spin. Grading the LOC of the RCTs based on spin is the necessity of the day for the readers. Only 49.6% of the RCTs had high LOC. Objective structuring of the abstracts would help eliminate spin in the future.
Level of evidence
Level 1.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arthur W, Zaaza Z, Checketts JX, Johnson AL, Middlemist K, Basener C, Jellison S, Wayant C, Vassar M (2020) Analyzing spin in abstracts of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials with statistically insignificant primary endpoints. Arthroscopy 36:1443-1450.e1
Austin J, Smith C, Natarajan K, Som M, Wayant C, Vassar M (2019) Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional review. Clin Obes 9:e12292
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P (2014) Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 32:4120–4126
Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:2058–2064
Brukner PD, Crossley KM, Morris H, Bartold SJ, Elliott B (2006) 5. Recent advances in sports medicine. Med J Aust 184:188–193
Chellamuthu G, Muthu S (2021) Regarding “analyzing spin in abstracts of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials with statistically insignificant primary endpoints.” Arthroscopy 37:13–14
Cook DA, Sorensen KJ, Wilkinson JM, Berger RA (2013) Barriers and decisions when answering clinical questions at the point of care: a grounded theory study. JAMA Intern Med 173:1962–1969
Daei A, Soleymani MR, Ashrafi-rizi H, Zargham-Boroujeni A, Kelishadi R (2020) Clinical information seeking behavior of physicians: a systematic review. Int J Med Inf 139:104144
Ertl N (2016) A new way of documenting scientific data from medical publications. Karger Gazzette 20:1–4
Gewandter JS, McKeown A, McDermott MP, Dworkin JD, Smith SM, Gross RA, Hunsinger M, Lin AH, Rappaport BA, Rice ASC, Rowbotham MC, Williams MR, Turk DC, Dworkin RH (2015) Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review. J Pain 16:3–10
Girinivasan C, Sathish M (2021) Analysis of reference practices among practicing orthopaedicians in India. Indian J Orthop. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00350-4
Hartley J (2004) Current findings from research on structured abstracts. J Med Libr Assoc JMLA 92:368–371
Haynes RB (2017) Improving reports of research by more informative abstracts: a personal reflection. J R Soc Med 110:249–254
Haynes RB, Mulrow CD, Huth EJ, Altman DG, Gardner MJ (1990) More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 113:69–76
Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF (2008) CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 5:e20
Horton R (1995) The rhetoric of research. BMJ 310:985–987
Junger D (1995) The rhetoric of research. Embrace scientific rhetoric for its power. BMJ 311:61
Kweon CY, Hagen MS, Gee AO (2020) What’s new in sports medicine. J Bone Joint Surg 102:636–643
Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, Boutron I (2015) Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:85
Marcelo A, Gavino A, Isip-Tan IT et al (2012) A comparison of the accuracy of clinical decisions based on full-text articles and on journal abstracts alone: a study among residents in a tertiary care hospital. Evid Based Med 18:48–53
Nasr El-Din W (2018) Latest impact factors journal list 2018, Thomson Reuters based on 2017 Journal Citation Reports. Available via DIALOG https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329702629_Latest_Impact_Factors_Journal_List_2018Thomson_Reuters_based_on_2017_Journal_Citation_Reports. Accessed on 25 Feb 2021
Ochodo EA, de Haan MC, Reitsma JB, Hooft L, Bossuyt PM, Leeflang MMG (2013) Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin.” Radiology 267:581–588
Pitkin RM, Branagan MA, Burmeister LF (1999) Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA 281:1110–1111
Quincy B, Ragan P (2016) Critical appraisal of the randomized controlled trial. J Physician Assist Educ 27:144–146
Saint S, Christakis DA, Saha S, Elmore JG, Welsh DE, Baker P, Koepsell TD (2000) Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med 15:881–884
Shaqman M, Al-Abedalla K, Wagner J, Swede H, Gunsolley JC, Ioannidou E (2020) Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230843
Singleton AJ (1995) The rhetoric of research. Encourage spin: it provides context. BMJ 311:61
Smith R (2018) The dangers of textbooks. BMJ Opin Available via DIALOG https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2018/03/23/richard-smith-the-dangers-of-textbooks/. Accessed 25 Feb 2021
Vaishya R, Dhammi IK (2017) Upsurge of sports injuries and their treatment. Indian J Orthop 51:485–486
Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, Moher D, Hrobjartsson A, Lasserson T, Boutron I (2016) A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol 75:56–65
Orthopaedic Research Group - About Us. Orthop. Res. Group Available via DIALOG https://orthopaedicresearchgroup.com/about.php. Accessed 25 Feb 2021
Orthopaedic Research Group - Quality Appraisal Committee. Orthop. Res. Group Available via DIALOG https://orthopaedicresearchgroup.com/qac.php. Accessed 25 Feb 2021
ORG – QAC Conventions. Orthop. Res. Group Available via DIALOG https://orthopaedicresearchgroup.com/convention.php. Accessed 25 Feb 2021
Bookmarklet – Altmetric. Altmetric Available via DIALOG https://www.altmetric.com/products/free-tools/bookmarklet/. Accessed 25 Feb 2021
Web of Science Core Collection: The Citation Report & The h-index. Web Sci. Available via DIALOG https://clarivate.com/webofsciencegroup/solutions/web-of-science-core-collection/. Accessed 25 Feb 2021
Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (1987) A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical article. Ann Intern Med 106:598–604
Funding
No funding was utilised for the study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
GC—Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigations, methodology, administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualisation, writing original drafts and reviewing drafts; SM—Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigations, methodology, administration, resources, supervision, validation, visualisation, writing original drafts and reviewing drafts; UKD—Conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis, investigations, methodology; RR—Conceptualisation, Data curation, formal analysis, investigations, methodology, administration, resources, supervision.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
Ethical committee approval was not needed for the conduction of this study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chellamuthu, ., Muthu, ., Damodaran, U.K. et al. “Only 50% of randomized trials have high level of confidence in arthroscopy and sports medicine”—a spin-based assessment. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 2789–2798 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06614-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06614-8