Abstract
ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of an intervention compared to the usual peer-review process on reducing spin in the abstract’s conclusion of biomedical study reports. Study Design and SettingWe conducted a two-arm, parallel-group RCT in a sample of primary research manuscripts submitted to BMJ Open. The authors received short instructions alongside the peer reviewers’ comments in the intervention group. We assessed the presence of spin (primary outcome), types of spin, and wording change in the revised abstract’s conclusion. Outcome assessors were blinded to the intervention assignment. ResultsOf the 184 manuscripts randomized, 108 (54 intervention, 54 control) were selected for revision and could be evaluated for the presence of spin. The proportion of manuscripts with spin was 6% lower (95% CI: 24% lower to 13% higher) in the intervention group (57%, 31/54) than in the control group (63%, 34/54). The wording of the revised abstract’s conclusion was changed in 34/54 (63%) manuscripts in the intervention group and 26/54 (48%) in the control group. The four prespecified types of spin involved (i) selective reporting (12 in the intervention group vs. 8 in the control group), (ii) including information not supported by evidence (9 vs. 9), and (iii) interpretation not consistent with the study results (14 vs. 18), and (iv) unjustified recommendations for practice (5 vs. 11). ConclusionThese short instructions to authors did not have a statistically significant effect on reducing spin in revised abstract conclusions, and based on the confidence interval, the existence of a large effect can be excluded. Other interventions to reduce spin in reports of original research should be evaluated. Study registrationosf.io/xnuyt.
Highlights
Research findings should be disseminated completely and accurately [1]
Given that the abstract and its conclusions are often the most widely read part of a scientific article [16], we considered a concise intervention to reduce spin in the abstract conclusion of primary research and research synthesis manuscripts that are submitted for publication
Overall spin present Selective reporting Including information not supported by evidence Interpretation not consistent with study results Unjustified recommendations for practice
Summary
Research findings should be disseminated completely and accurately [1]. Authors may intentionally or nonintentionally misrepresent or overinterpret their results, which is referred to as ‘‘spin’’ [2,3]. Through ‘‘spin,’’ the effectiveness of interventions is typically presented in a more favorable way than is justified by the study findings. Several studies have documented a high prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature [2e10]. A recent systematic review of 35 reports evaluated the prevalence of spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy tests, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses [11]. The median prevalence of spin was 67% (range: 10e84%), with the highest prevalence of spin found in trials [11,12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
