Spin in Systematic Reviews of Rehabilitation Journals Was High Prevalence: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Abstract

Objectives: Systematic reviews are crucial for evidence-based medicine, but authors may add spin. This study investigated the prevalence of spin in abstracts and main texts of systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals and explored associated factors.

Design: This meta-epidemiological study secondary analysis 200 systematic reviews from rehabilitation journals (2020-2022) focusing on pairwise meta-analyses of health interventions. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Spin was defined as reporting that highlights a beneficial effect greater than shown by results. We classified spin into misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, inappropriate extrapolation, and multiple spins based on analysis of the main text and abstract.

Results: Spin was present in 154 (77.0%) systematic reviews in the main text and 151 (75.5%) in the abstract. Misleading interpretation was the most common category (86.4% in main text, 85.4% in abstract). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 use was associated with reduced spin (odds ratio = 0.27 [95% CI = 0.13-0.57] for main text; OR = 0.39 [95% CI = 0.20-0.76] for abstract).

Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of spin in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals. To avoid spin in the SRs of rehabilitation journals, the authors must adhere to guidelines, such as Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020.

Keywords: A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR 2); Bias; Certainty of evidence (CoE); Confidence interval (CI); Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE); Guideline Adherence; Interquartile ranges (IQR); Journal impact factor (JIF); Meta-Research; Odds ratio (OR); Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); Rehabilitation; Systematic reviews (SRs).