Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of Spin in RCTs of Spine Surgery Using ORG–LOC Grading Tool

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Even in highly credible research models, such as randomised control trials (RCTs), many pitfalls do exist that a practitioner must be aware of, to get the actual sense of the research. The one such pitfall that is much more common but ironically less explored is the Writers’ bias or the spin. Particularly in the abstracts, it is a potential source of deception to the readers.

Methods

We selected 250 recent RCTs from the top 5 spine journals. Baseline data and CONSORT Adherence Score (CAS) were collected. Abstracts of the RCTs were graded using the level of confidence (LOC) grading tool developed by the Orthopaedic Research Group. All possible associations of spin were studied to assess the significance.

Results

The median CAS was 11 (IQR 10–12). Only 47.6% (n = 119) articles had High LOC with no or one non-critical spin in abstract. 12.4% (n = 31) had Moderate LOC and 28% (n = 70) had Low LOC. The rest had Critically Low LOC with more than one critical spin. Of the variables analyzed in multivariate regression analysis, only CAS had a (negative) correlation with the LOC of the abstracts.

Conclusions

Spin-based grading of RCTs is the need of the hour to aid readers to interpret the true essence of research papers. 40% of the RCTs in top spine journals had low to critically low LOC. Objective structuring of abstracts with adherence to CONSORT guidelines is the way forward to prevent spin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Availability of Data and Materials

Available at request.

Abbreviations

AAS:

Altmetric Attention Score

CONSORT:

Consolidated standards of reporting trials

CAS:

CONSORT Adherence Score

CORE:

Concise Objective Report

EBP:

Evidence-Based Practise

IMRad:

Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion

IQR:

Inter-Quartile Range

LOC:

Level of confidence

ORG:

Orthopaedic Research Group

ORGQAC:

Orthopaedic Research Group–Quality Appraisal Committee

OTG:

References on-the-go references

RCT:

Randomised control trial

References

  1. Hong, J., & Chen, J. (2020). Clinical physicians’ attitudes towards evidence-based medicine (EBM) and their evidence-based practice (EBP) in Wuhan, China https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6801589/. Accessed 25 Aug 2020

  2. Fehlings, M. G., Ahuja, C. S., Mroz, T., Hsu, W., & Harrop, J. (2017). Future advances in spine surgery: The AOSpine North America perspective. Neurosurgery, 80(3S), S1-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Szucs, K. A., Benson, J. D., & Haneman, B. (2017). Using a guided journal club as a teaching strategy to enhance learning skills for evidence-based practice. Occupational Therapy in Health Care, 31(2), 143–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Meleger, A. L., Co, J. P. T., & Zafonte, R. D. (2020). Rethinking medical journal club. The American Journal of Medicine, 133(5), 534–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rawat, S., & Meena, S. (2014). Publish or perish: Where are we heading? Journal of Research in Medical Sciences: The Official Journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, 19(2), 87–89.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bo-Christer Bjork, A. R. Scientific journal publishing: yearly volume and open access availability http://www.informationr.net/ir/14-1/paper391.html. Accessed 25 Aug 2020

  7. Hurst, D., & Mickan, S. (2017). Describing knowledge encounters in healthcare: A mixed studies systematic review and development of a classification. Implementation Science, 12(1), 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Daei, A., Soleymani, M. R., Ashrafi-rizi, H., Zargham-Boroujeni, A., & Kelishadi, R. (2020). Clinical information seeking behavior of physicians: A systematic review. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 139, 104144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Quincy, B., & Ragan, P. (2016). Critical appraisal of the randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Physician Assistant Education, 27(3), 144–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boutron, I., Dutton, S., Ravaud, P., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA, 303(20), 2058–2064.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Boutron, I., Altman, D. G., 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. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 32(36), 4120–4126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Orthopaedic Research Group| HOME. https://orthopaedicresearchgroup.com/. Accessed 30 Dec 2020

  13. Chellamuthu, G., Muthu, S., Damodaran, U. K., & Rangabashyam, R. (2021). “Only 50% of randomized trials have high level of confidence in arthroscopy and sports medicine”—A spin-based assessment. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Official Journal of the ESSKA, 29(9), 2789–2798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. (PDF) Latest Impact Factors Journal List 2018, Thomson Reuters based on 2017 Journal Citation Reports. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329702629_Latest_Impact_Factors_Journal_List_2018Thomson_Reuters_based_on_2017_Journal_Citation_Reports. Accessed 23 Aug 2020

  15. Andrade, C. (2011). How to write a good abstract for a scientific paper or conference presentation. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 53(2), 172–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Falagas, M.E., Vergidis, P.I. (2004). Addressing the limitations of structured abstracts. Annals of Internal Medicine 141(7), 576–577.

  17. (2006). Read MEDLINE abstracts with a pinch of salt. Lancet (London, England) 368(9545), 1394.

  18. Saint, S., Christakis, D. A., Saha, S., Elmore, J. G., Welsh, D. E., Baker, P., et al. (2000). Journal reading habits of internists. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 15(12), 881–884.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haynes, R. B., Mulrow, C. D., Huth, E. J., Altman, D. G., & Gardner, M. J. (1996). More informative abstracts revisited. The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 33(1), 1–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ertl, N. (1969). https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/ertl-1969/. Published October 6, 2016. Accessed 24 Aug 2020

  21. (1987). A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature. Annals of Internal Medicine 106(4), 598–604

  22. Haynes, R. B., Mulrow, C. D., Huth, E. J., Altman, D. G., & Gardner, M. J. (1990). More informative abstracts revisited. Annals of Internal Medicine, 113(1), 69–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Haynes, R. B. (2017). Improving reports of research by more informative abstracts: A personal reflection. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 110(6), 249–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hopewell, S., Clarke, M., Moher, D., Wager, E., Middleton, P., & Altman, D. G., et al. (2020). CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: Explanation and elaboration. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2211558/. Accessed 24 Aug 2020

  25. Hartley, J. (2004). Current findings from research on structured abstracts. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 92(3), 368–371.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. 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 Clinical. Obesity, 9(2), e12292.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lazarus, C., Haneef, R., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2015). Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15, 85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yavchitz, A., Ravaud, P., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Hrobjartsson, A., Lasserson, T., et al. (2016). A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 56–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Girinivasan, C., & Sathish, M. (2021). Analysis of reference practices among practicing orthopaedicians in India. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-021-00350-4. Accessed 26 Jan 2021

  30. Arthur, W., Zaaza, Z., Checketts, J. X., Johnson, A. L., Middlemist, K., Basener, C., et al. (2020). Analyzing spin in abstracts of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials with statistically insignificant primary endpoints. Arthroscopy, 36(5), 1443-1450.e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chellamuthu, G., & Muthu, S. (2021). Regarding, “analyzing spin in abstracts of orthopaedic randomized controlled trials with statistically insignificant primary endpoints.” Arthroscopy, 37(1), 13–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shaqman, M., Al-Abedalla, K., Wagner, J., Swede, H., Gunsolley, J. C., & Ioannidou, E. (2020). Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7164582/. Accessed 23 Aug 2020

  33. Cooper, C. M., Gray, H. M., Ross, A. E., Hamilton, T. A., Downs, J. B., Wayant, C., et al. (2019). Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials. The Laryngoscope, 129(9), 2036–2040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pitkin, R. M., Branagan, M. A., & Burmeister, L. F. (1999). Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. JAMA, 281(12), 1110–1111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ochodo, E. A., de Haan, M. C., Reitsma, J. B., Hooft, L., Bossuyt, P. M., & Leeflang, M. M. G. (2013). Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin.” Radiology, 267(2), 581–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. QAC. https://orthopaedicresearchgroup.com/qac.php. Accessed 23 Aug 2020

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for the conduction of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopaedic Research Group, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

    Sathish Muthu, Girinivasan Chellamuthu, Eswar Ramakrishnan, Arun Prasad Dakshinamoorthy & Madhan Jeyaraman

  2. Department of Orthopaedics, Karnataka Institute of Medical Sciences, Hubli, Karnataka, India

    K. S. Karthika Hathwar

  3. Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, Sri Lalithambigai Medical College and Hospital, Dr MGR Educational and Research Institute, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Madhan Jeyaraman

Authors
  1. Sathish Muthu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Girinivasan Chellamuthu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K. S. Karthika Hathwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eswar Ramakrishnan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Arun Prasad Dakshinamoorthy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Madhan Jeyaraman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Madhan Jeyaraman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Consent to participate and publish

For this type of study informed consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muthu, S., Chellamuthu, G., Hathwar, K.S.K. et al. Analysis of Spin in RCTs of Spine Surgery Using ORG–LOC Grading Tool. JOIO 56, 1882–1890 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00697-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-022-00697-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation