Spin of information and inconsistency between abstract and full text in RCTs investigating upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: An overview study.

IF 16.4 1区化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.3233/RNN-211247

Diego Tosatto, Daniele Bonacina, Alessio Signori, Leonardo Pellicciari, Francesca Cecchi, Cesare Maria Cornaggia, Daniele Piscitelli

{"title":"Spin of information and inconsistency between abstract and full text in RCTs investigating upper limb rehabilitation after stroke: An overview study.","authors":"Diego Tosatto, Daniele Bonacina, Alessio Signori, Leonardo Pellicciari, Francesca Cecchi, Cesare Maria Cornaggia, Daniele Piscitelli","doi":"10.3233/RNN-211247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Researchers may be tempted to favorably distort the interpretation of their findings when reporting the abstract (i.e., spin). Spin bias overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention compared with the results shown in the full text.Objective: To assess the occurrence of spin bias and incompleteness in reporting abstracts in post-stroke upper limb (UL) rehabilitation randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Methods: A sample of 120 post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs (indexed in PEDro database), published in English between 2012 and 2020, was included. The completeness of reporting and spin were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) and the spin checklist. The relationship between CONSORT-A and spin checklist scores with RCT and journal characteristics was assessed.Results: CONSORT-A and spin checklist scored 5.3±2.4 (max 15-points, higher scores indicating better reporting) and 5.5±2.0 (max 7-points, higher scores indicating presence of spin), respectively; Significant differences were detected between abstract and full-text scores in the CONSORT-A checklist (p < 0.01) and the spin checklist (p < 0.01). Items of the CONSORT-A checklist in the abstracts and full text showed a fair agreement (k = 0.31), while a moderate agreement (k = 0.59) for the spin checklist was detected. Completeness of abstract was associated (R2 = 0.46) with journal Impact Factor (p < 0.01), CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.04), and abstract word number (p = 0.02). A lower spin was associated with a higher journal Impact Factor (p = 0.01) and CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.01).Conclusions: Post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs abstracts were largely incomplete showing spin. Authors, reviewers, publishers, and stakeholders should be aware of this phenomenon. Publishers should consider allowing more words in abstracts to improve the completeness of reporting abstracts. Although we have investigated only stroke rehabilitation, our results suggest that health care professionals of all disciplines should avoid clinical decision-making based solely upon abstracts.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211247","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

Abstract

Background: Researchers may be tempted to favorably distort the interpretation of their findings when reporting the abstract (i.e., spin). Spin bias overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention compared with the results shown in the full text.

Objective: To assess the occurrence of spin bias and incompleteness in reporting abstracts in post-stroke upper limb (UL) rehabilitation randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Methods: A sample of 120 post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs (indexed in PEDro database), published in English between 2012 and 2020, was included. The completeness of reporting and spin were assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) and the spin checklist. The relationship between CONSORT-A and spin checklist scores with RCT and journal characteristics was assessed.

Results: CONSORT-A and spin checklist scored 5.3±2.4 (max 15-points, higher scores indicating better reporting) and 5.5±2.0 (max 7-points, higher scores indicating presence of spin), respectively; Significant differences were detected between abstract and full-text scores in the CONSORT-A checklist (p < 0.01) and the spin checklist (p < 0.01). Items of the CONSORT-A checklist in the abstracts and full text showed a fair agreement (k = 0.31), while a moderate agreement (k = 0.59) for the spin checklist was detected. Completeness of abstract was associated (R2 = 0.46) with journal Impact Factor (p < 0.01), CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.04), and abstract word number (p = 0.02). A lower spin was associated with a higher journal Impact Factor (p = 0.01) and CONSORT Guideline endorsement (p = 0.01).

Conclusions: Post-stroke UL rehabilitation RCTs abstracts were largely incomplete showing spin. Authors, reviewers, publishers, and stakeholders should be aware of this phenomenon. Publishers should consider allowing more words in abstracts to improve the completeness of reporting abstracts. Although we have investigated only stroke rehabilitation, our results suggest that health care professionals of all disciplines should avoid clinical decision-making based solely upon abstracts.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

研究脑卒中后上肢康复的随机对照试验的信息旋转和摘要与全文的不一致:综述研究。

背景:研究人员在报告摘要时可能会倾向于歪曲对其研究结果的解释(即，spin)。与全文中显示的结果相比，自旋偏倚过分强调了干预的有益效果。目的:评估脑卒中后上肢康复随机临床试验(RCTs)报告摘要中自旋偏倚和不完整性的发生情况。方法:纳入2012 - 2020年间发表的120篇卒中后UL康复随机对照试验(编入PEDro数据库)。采用摘要报告试验综合标准(conner - a)和自旋检查表评估报告和自旋的完整性。评估concont - a和旋转检查表得分与RCT和期刊特征的关系。结果:const - a和spin checklist得分分别为5.3±2.4分(最大15分，越高报告越好)和5.5±2.0分(最大7分，越高说明存在spin);结论:卒中后UL康复rct摘要在很大程度上是不完整的，显示旋转。作者、审稿人、出版商和利益相关者应该意识到这一现象。出版商应该考虑在摘要中加入更多的单词，以提高报告摘要的完整性。虽然我们只调查了中风康复，但我们的结果表明，所有学科的卫生保健专业人员都应避免仅根据摘要进行临床决策。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合

CiteScore

31.40

自引率

1.10%

发文量

312

审稿时长

2 months

期刊介绍： Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.

期刊最新文献

Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.