Prevalence of Reporting Bias in Abstracts of Meniscal Transplant Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Increased Association With Study Age: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background:

Spin is a form of reporting bias in which study results are presented more favorably than justified by the data. It often appears in abstracts and conclusions, where selective emphasis or misleading interpretation can distort readers' understanding and influence clinical decision-making.

Purpose:

To identify the prevalence of spin, a reporting bias in which authors overemphasize beneficial or significant results and underreport weaknesses, in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT), as well as to investigate associations between spin and study characteristics.

Study Design:

Systematic review, Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the PubMed, Web of Science, and Medscape databases were searched using the terms “menisc^* transplant” OR “menisc^* transplantation.” Studies were included if they were systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the English language and in peer-reviewed journals. Studies excluded were case reports, case series, animal or cadaveric studies, studies not published in the English language, and studies without an accessible full text. Data extracted included year of publication, journal, level of evidence, funding, Scopus CiteScore, and Clarivate impact factor. Abstracts were then analyzed for the 15 most common types of spin. Statistical analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test and linear regression with significance set at a P value <.05.

Results:

After search screening, 41 studies met the inclusion criteria. Spin was identified in 19 (46.3%) abstracts. Type 3 spin (“Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention”) was the most common type of spin, seen in 7 (17.1%) abstracts. Misleading reporting was the most common category of spin, found in 20 (48.8%) abstracts. Studies from earlier years of publication had significantly more spin than studies published more recently (P = .005).

Conclusion:

Spin is found in nearly half of abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating MAT, with misleading reporting being the most common modality of spin. Early studies on MAT exhibited a higher prevalence of spin in comparison with more recent investigations. Clinicians should be aware of the presence of spin and exercise judgment before making conclusions from study abstracts without assessing the full text.