A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers

Abstract

BackgroundIn the scientific literature, “spin” refers to reporting practices that make the study findings appear more favorable than results justify. The practice of “spin” or misrepresentation and overinterpretation may lead to an imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of study results about performance of putative biomarkers. We aimed to classify spin (i.e., misrepresentation and overinterpretation of study findings) in recent clinical studies evaluating the performance of biomarkers in ovarian cancer. MethodsWe searched PubMed systematically for all evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers published in 2015. Studies eligible for inclusion reported the clinical performance of prognostic, predictive, or diagnostic biomarkers. ResultsOur search identified 1,026 studies; 326 studies met all eligibility criteria, of which we evaluated the first 200 studies. Of these, 140 (70%) contained one or more form of spin in the title, abstract, or main-text conclusion, exaggerating the performance of the biomarker. The most frequent forms of spin identified were (1) other purposes of biomarker claimed not investigated (65; 32.5%); (2) mismatch between intended aim and conclusion (57; 28.5%); and (3) incorrect presentation of results (40; 20%). ConclusionOur study provides evidence of misrepresentation and overinterpretation of finding in recent clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.