Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.

IF 7.2 Q1 ETHICS Research integrity and peer review Pub Date : 2019-12-19 eCollection Date: 2019-01-01 DOI:10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4
Pauline A J Steegmans, Nicola Di Girolamo, Reint A Meursinge Reynders
{"title":"Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews.","authors":"Pauline A J Steegmans,&nbsp;Nicola Di Girolamo,&nbsp;Reint A Meursinge Reynders","doi":"10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called \"spin\". In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of \"spin\" related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":7.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research integrity and peer review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0084-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called "spin". In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin.

Methods: Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of "spin" related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups.

Discussion: We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
正畸干预不良反应的报告、解释和推断:系统评价的横断面研究方案。
背景:标题和摘要是生物医学论文中阅读量最大的部分。因此,重要的是摘要要透明地报告卫生保健干预措施的有利和不利影响,不要误导读者。对研究结果的误导性报道、解释或推断被称为“spin”。在本研究中,我们将评估Cochrane和非Cochrane综述的摘要中是否报告或考虑了正畸干预的不良反应,以及是否确定了自旋以及自旋的类型。方法:对研究设计类型、参与者、干预措施、结果和环境定义了入选标准。我们将包括在五个主要的正畸期刊和Cochrane数据库中发表的临床正畸干预措施的系统综述。空白评论将被排除在外。我们将手动搜索2009年8月1日至2019年7月31日之间发表的符合条件的评论。数据收集表格是先验制定的。所有的研究选择和数据提取程序将由两位审稿人独立完成。我们的主要结果将是系统综述摘要中报道或考虑的正畸干预不良反应的流行程度,以及与这些不良反应相关的“旋转”的流行程度。我们还将记录三种自旋亚型的流行情况,即误导性报道,误导性解释和误导性外推相关的自旋。所有统计数据将分别计算以下组:(1)单独计算所有期刊,(2)将所有期刊合并计算,(3)分别计算5个主要正畸期刊和Cochrane系统评价数据库。将开发广义线性模型来比较不同的组。讨论:我们期望我们的结果将提高人们对报告和考虑不良反应的重要性的认识,以及在正畸干预措施的系统综述摘要中与这些影响相关的旋转现象的存在。这一点很重要,因为对系统综述摘要中不良反应的不完整和不充分的报告、解释或推断可能会误导读者,并可能导致不充分的临床实践。我们的研究结果可能会对判断是否接受发表正畸干预措施的系统评价产生政策影响。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Investigating the links between questionable research practices, scientific norms and organisational culture. An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency. Differences in the reporting of conflicts of interest and sponsorships in systematic reviews with meta-analyses in dentistry: an examination of factors associated with their reporting. Knowledge and practices of plagiarism among journal editors of Nepal. Perceptions, experiences, and motivation of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in South Africa: a qualitative study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1