The distortion of truth or “spin” has become a major concern in various fields as it can affect the accuracy of research dissemination. Recognizing the extent of this issue in physiotherapy research is essential for promoting good-quality research and raising awareness.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to determine the prevalence of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published by Indian physiotherapists.
METHODS:
A Medline search was conducted to identify RCTs published by Indian physiotherapists from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies with nonsignificant primary outcomes and reviewed them for spin in both abstracts and full texts using the Boutron checklist. Three reviewers were involved in the process.
RESULTS:
Of the 44 RCTs with nonsignificant outcomes, 40 (90%) showed spin in their abstracts and 39 (88%) in their main text conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS:
Our findings reveal a significant prevalence of spin in nonsignificant RCTs published by physiotherapy researchers. Improving research knowledge, enhancing scientific writing skills, and providing mentorship may help reduce spin in result reporting.
KellyJ, SadeghiehT, AdeliKPeer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. EJIFCC2014;25:227–43.
2.
BoutronIReporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA2010;303:2058.
3.
BoutronI, AltmanDG, HopewellS, Vera-BadilloF, TannockI, RavaudPImpact 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 Oncol2014;32:4120–6.
4.
WoloshinS, SchwartzLMPress releases: Translating research into news. JAMA. American Medical Association2002;287:2856–8.
5.
AssadiR, ZarghiN, ShamlooAS, NikooiyanYEvidence-based abstracts: What research summaries should contain to support evidence-based medicine. Int J Evid Based Healthc2012;10:154–8.
CaulfieldT, OgboguUThe commercialization of university-based research: Balancing risks and benefits. BMC Med Ethics2015;16:70.
8.
LockyerS, HodgsonR, DumvilleJC, CullumN“Spin” in wound care research: The reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes. Trials2013;14:371.
9.
KhanMS, LateefN, SiddiqiTJ, RehmanKA, AlnaimatS, KhanSU, et al. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: A systematic review. JAMA Netw Open2019;2:e192622.
10.
OchodoEA, de HaanMC, ReitsmaJB, HooftL, BossuytPM, LeeflangMMGOverinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: Evidence of “spin. ” Radiology2013;267:581–8.
11.
BoutronI, RavaudPMisrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci2018;115:2613–9.
12.
MathieuS, GiraudeauB, SoubrierM, RavaudPMisleading abstract conclusions in randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: Comparison of the abstract conclusions and the results section. Joint Bone Spine2012;79:262–7.
13.
HubschmanS, VenincasaMJ, KuriyanAE, SridharJEffect of funding source on “Spin” in studies of ocriplasmin therapy for vitreomacular traction and macular hole. Clin Ophthalmol Auckl NZ2020;14:81–8.
14.
NascimentoDP, CostaLOP, GonzalezGZ, MaherCG, MoseleyAMAbstracts of low back pain trials are poorly reported, contain spin of information, and are inconsistent with the full text: An overview study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2019;100:1976–85.e18.
15.
NascimentoDP, GonzalezGZ, AraujoAC, MoseleyA, MaherC, CostaLOP Factors associated with the reporting quality of low back pain systematic review abstracts in physical therapy:Amethodological study. Braz J Phys Ther. 2020;S1413355520311175.
16.
ChiuK, GrundyQ, BeroL‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. Boutron I, editor. PLOS Biol2017;15:e2002173.
17.
HariohmK, PrakashV, SaravankumarJQuantity and quality of randomized controlled trials published by Indian physiotherapists. Perspect Clin Res2015;6:91–7.
18.
JatinS, AnandS, RicardoPScientific writing of novice researchers: What difficulties and encouragements do they encounter? Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll2009;84:511–6.
19.
DwanK, GambleC, WilliamsonPR, KirkhamJJ, Reporting Bias GroupSystematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PloS One2013;8:e66844.
20.
DuyxB, UrlingsMJE, SwaenGMH, BouterLM, ZeegersMPScientific citations favor positive results: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol2017;88:92–101.
21.
BoutronI, HaneefR, YavchitzA, BaronG, NovackJ, OranskyI, et al. Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of “spin” in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients’/caregivers’ interpretation of treatment benefit. BMC Med2019;17:105.
22.
YavchitzA, BoutronI, BafetaA, MarrounI, CharlesP, MantzJ, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: A cohort study Bero LA, editor. PLoS Med.e2012;9:1001308.
23.
JellisonS, RobertsW, BowersA, CombsT, BeamanJ, WayantC, et al. Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2019;bmjebm-2019-111176.
24.
NascimentoDP, GonzalezGZ, AraujoAC, MoseleyAM, MaherCG, CostaLOP Eight out of every ten abstracts of low back pain systematic reviews presented spin and inconsistencies with the full text: An analysis of 66 systematic reviews. 34.
25.
CostaLJM, XavierACG, del GiglioANegative results in cancer clinical trials—equivalence or poor accrual? Control Clin Trials2004;25:525–33.
26.
LazarusC, HaneefR, RavaudP, HopewellS, AltmanDG, BoutronIPeer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited. J Clin Epidemiol2016;77:44–51.
27.
ArunachalamL, HunterIA, KilleenSReporting of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published in high-impact surgical journals: Ann surg2017;265:1141–5.
28.
GardnerMJ, AltmanDGConfidence intervals rather than P values: Estimation rather than hypothesis testing. BMJ1986;292:746–50.
29.
SteinfathM, VoglS, VioletN, SchwarzF, MielkeH, SelhorstT, et al. Simple changes of individual studies can improve the reproducibility of the biomedical scientific process as a whole. Wagenmakers E-J, editor. PLOS ONE2018;13:e0202762.
30.
NissenSB, MagidsonT, GrossK, BergstromCTPublication bias and the canonization of false facts. Rodgers P, editor. eLife. eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd2016;5:e21451.
