Appraisal of the Presence of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Free Bone Block Procedures for Glenohumeral Instability

Abstract

Background:

Clinicians increasingly rely on abstracts to assist with clinical decision-making. Spin is a bias that misrepresents research findings. The presence of spin in abstracts may mislead surgeons to believe a treatment is more effective than data suggest.

Purpose:

To evaluate the presence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on free bone block (FBB) procedures for glenohumeral instability.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, the PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were queried with the terms “bone block” and “shoulder.” Studies were included if they met the following criteria: systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses regarding FBB procedures published in the English language in peer-reviewed journals. Abstracts were analyzed for 15 spin types. Study quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Version 2) categories. Study characteristics including year of publication, journal impact factor and CiteScore, and level of evidence were collected, and Fisher exact test was used to find correlations between spin and study characteristics. Statistical significance was defined as a P value ≤.05.

Results:

A total of 23 studies were included in this study. Spin was identified in 21 (91.3%) studies, and the number of spin types present in a single study ranged from 0 to 7. Spin type 6 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm outcomes or analysis favoring the safety of the experimental intervention) was identified most frequently (17; 73.9%). A significant association was found between spin type 5 (the conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies) and scientific journal (P = .013), and between spin 9 (the conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias) and year of publication (P = .010).

Conclusion:

Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating FBB for glenohumeral instability. Associations between spin and both year and journal of publication were identified. These results suggest that surgeons should use full texts to help inform conclusions when using systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine the efficacy and safety of FBB for glenohumeral instability.

Keywords

spin free bone block procedures glenohumeral instability reporting bias systematic review meta-analysis Latarjet distal tibia allograft

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baur

Satalich

O’Connell

Vap

Surgical management of recurrent instability following Latarjet procedure—a systematic review of salvage procedures. Shoulder Elbow. 2024;16(1):24-32.

Beran

Donaldson

Bishop

JY.

Treatment of chronic glenoid defects in the setting of recurrent anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010;19(5):769-780.

Boutron

Altman

Hopewell

. et al. 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. 2014;32(36):4120-4126.

Boutron

Dutton

Ravaud

Altman

Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010;303(20):2058-2064.

Brinkman

Damitio

Tokish

Arthroscopic management of the contact athlete with anterior instability. Clin Sports Med. 2024;43(4):601-615.

Buda

D’Ambrosi

Bellato

. et al. Failed Latarjet procedure: a systematic review of surgery revision options. J Orthop Traumatol. 2021;22(1):24.

Calvo

Delgado

Management of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions in anterior glenohumeral instability. J Exp Orthop. 2023;10(1):30.

Cerciello

Visonà

Morris

Corona

Bone block procedures in posterior shoulder instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(2):604-611.

Cognetti

Hughes

Kay

. et al. Bone block augmentation of the posterior glenoid for recurrent posterior shoulder instability is associated with high rates of clinical failure: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2022;38(2):551-563.e555.

10.

Cozzolino

de Giovanni

Malfi

. et al. Arthroscopic Latarjet versus arthroscopic free bone block procedures for anterior shoulder instability: a proportional meta-analysis comparing recurrence, complication, and reoperation rates. Am J Sports Med. 2024;52(7):1865-1876.

11.

Dickens

Owens

Cameron

. et al. The effect of subcritical bone loss and exposure on recurrent instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair in intercollegiate American football. Am J Sports Med. 2017;45(8):1769-1775.

12.

Dickersin

Chan

Chalmers

Sacks

Smith

H J.

Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1987;8(4):343-353.

13.

Dumont

Russell

Robertson

Anterior shoulder instability: a review of pathoanatomy, diagnosis and treatment. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2011;4(4):200-207.

14.

Easterbrook

Gopalan

Berlin

Matthews

Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337(8746):867-872.

15.

Falbo

Moore

Singleton

. et al. Glenoid bone augmentation: a contemporary and comprehensive systematic review of open procedures. Orthop Rev (Pavia). 2022;14(3):37834.

16.

Fletcher

Black

“Spin” in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. Med Law. 2007;26(3):511-525.

17.

Frank

Romeo

Richardson

. et al. Outcomes of Latarjet versus distal tibia allograft for anterior shoulder instability repair: a matched cohort analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2018;46(5):1030-1038.

18.

Gilat

Haunschild

Lavoie-Gagne

. et al. Outcomes of the Latarjet procedure versus free bone block procedures for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2021;49(3):805-816.

19.

Gilat

Wong

Lavoie-Gagne

. et al. Outcomes are comparable using free bone block autografts versus allografts for the management of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of “The Non-Latarjet”. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021;29(7):2159-2174.

20.

Gouveia

Abidi

Shamshoon

. et al. Arthroscopic Bankart repair with remplissage in comparison to bone block augmentation for anterior shoulder instability with bipolar bone loss: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2021;37(2):706-717.

21.

Gowd

Liu

Cabarcas

. et al. Management of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with bipolar bone loss: a systematic review to assess critical bone loss amounts. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(10):2484-2493.

22.

Gupta

Delaney

Petkin

Lafosse

Complications of the Latarjet procedure. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2015;8(1):59-66.

23.

Horton

The rhetoric of research. BMJ. 1995;310(6985):985-987.

24.

Hurley

Bloom

Manjunath

Jazrawi

Strauss

Outcomes of revision surgery for a failed prior Latarjet procedure: a systematic review. Bull Hosp Jt Dis (2013). 2020;78(3):210-216.

25.

Hwang

Samuel

Thompson

. et al. Reporting bias in the form of positive spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews on primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy. Published online January 1, 2024. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.018

26.

Kim

Hasan

Fathi

. et al. Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of superior capsular reconstruction. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31(8):1743-1750.

27.

Lau

Johnston

Gregory

. et al. Outcomes after revision anterior shoulder stabilization: a systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2020;8(5):2325967120922571.

28.

Longo

Loppini

Rizzello

. et al. Latarjet, Bristow, and Eden-Hybinette procedures for anterior shoulder dislocation: systematic review and quantitative synthesis of the literature. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(9):1184-1211.

29.

Malahias

Chytas

Raoulis

. et al. Iliac crest bone grafting for the management of anterior shoulder instability in patients with glenoid bone loss: a systematic review of contemporary literature. Sports Med Open. 2020;6(1):12.

30.

Malahias

Mitrogiannis

Gerogiannis

. et al. Non-rigid fixation of the glenoid bone block for patients with recurrent anterior instability and major glenoid bone loss: a systematic review. Shoulder Elbow. 2021;13(2):168-180.

31.

Marcelo

Gavino

Isip-Tan

. et al. 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. 2013;18(2):48-53.

32.

McNeil

Provencher

Wong

Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction demonstrates its safety with short-term to medium-term results for anteroinferior shoulder instability: a systematic review. J ISAKOS. 2020;5(1):37-47.

33.

Menendez

Wong

Tokish

Denard

Free bone block procedures for glenoid reconstruction in anterior shoulder instability. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2023;31(21):1103-1111.

34.

Moga

Konstantinidis

Coady

Gosh

Wong

Arthroscopic anatomic glenoid reconstruction: analysis of the learning curve. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018;6(11):232596711880790.

35.

Mojica

Schwartz

Hurley

. et al. Posterior glenoid bone block transfer for posterior shoulder instability: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30(12):2904-2909.

36.

Moroder

Schulz

Wierer

. et al. Neer Award 2019: Latarjet procedure vs. iliac crest bone graft transfer for treatment of anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss: a prospective randomized trial. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2019;28(7):1298-1307.

37.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

38.

Paras

Sabzevari

Solomon

. et al. Trends in level of evidence of systematic reviews in sports medicine, 2010-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop J Sports Med. 2022;10(9):232 59671221121330.

39.

Rongen

Hannink

Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials of orthopaedic surgical interventions. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016;98(5):403-409.

40.

Saeed

Pandit

Jordan

. et al. Open and arthroscopic posterior bone block with iliac crest autograft for posterior shoulder instability—systematic review of clinical and radiological outcomes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2023;109(4):103424.

41.

Saint

Christakis

Saha

. et al. Journal reading habits of internists. J Gen Intern Med. 2000;15(12):881-884.

42.

Shaha

Cook

Song

. et al. Redefining “critical” bone loss in shoulder instability: functional outcomes worsen with “subcritical” bone loss. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(7):1719-1725.

43.

Shea

Reeves

Wells

. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

44.

Tahir

Malik

Jordan

. et al. Arthroscopic bone block stabilisation procedures for glenoid bone loss in anterior glenohumeral instability: a systematic review of clinical and radiological outcomes. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2021;107(5):102949.

45.

Thompson

Hwang

Mayfield

. et al. Evaluation of spin in the clinical literature of suture tape augmentation for ankle instability. Foot Ankle Orthop. 2023;8(2):24730114231179218.

46.

Villatte

Martins

Erivan

. et al. Use of allograft to reconstruct anterior bony glenoid defect in chronic glenohumeral instability: a systematic review. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2020;140(10):1475-1485.

47.

Wei

Zhao

Zeng

Free bone grafting improves clinical outcomes in anterior shoulder instability with bone defect: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with a minimum of 1-year follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2022;31(4):e190-e208.

48.

Williams

HLM

Evans

Furness

Smith

. It’s not all about redislocation: a systematic review of complications after anterior shoulder stabilization surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(13):3277-3283.

49.

Yavchitz

Ravaud

Altman

. et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56-65.