Purpose: Spin is the practice of distorting results interpretation in studies to view interventions more favorably. This study aims to identify and characterize the incidence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating mesenchymal stem cell therapy for knee osteoarthritis (OA).
Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched. Study title, author, journal of publication, year of publication, level of evidence, study design, funding, and adherence to PRISMA were recorded for included texts. Abstracts were analyzed for the 15 most common types of spin.
Results: Fifty-two studies met inclusion criteria. At least one type of spin was found in 50 (96 %) abstracts with a maximum of nine types exhibited in four (6.7 %) studies. The most common types of spin were spin 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies"), spin 8 ("Conclusion extrapolates the review's findings from a surrogate marker or a specific outcome to the global improvement of the disease"), and spin 9 ("Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias"), with 36 studies reporting them each. There was a significant correlation between year of publication with type 3 ("Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention") (P = 0.034).
Conclusions: Spin is highly prevalent in systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating mesenchymal stem cells for knee OA. Year of publication is also associated with overemphasis on outcomes favoring the intervention.

