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

IF 1.9 4区医学 Q4 NEUROSCIENCES

Restorative neurology and neuroscience 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":21130,"journal":{"name":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","volume":"40 3","pages":"195-207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative neurology and neuroscience","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/RNN-211247","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROSCIENCES","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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Restorative neurology and neuroscience 医学-神经科学

CiteScore

5.40

自引率

3.60%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： This interdisciplinary journal publishes papers relating to the plasticity and response of the nervous system to accidental or experimental injuries and their interventions, transplantation, neurodegenerative disorders and experimental strategies to improve regeneration or functional recovery and rehabilitation. Experimental and clinical research papers adopting fresh conceptual approaches are encouraged. The overriding criteria for publication are novelty, significant experimental or clinical relevance and interest to a multidisciplinary audience. Experiments on un-anesthetized animals should conform with the standards for the use of laboratory animals as established by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, US National Academy of Sciences. Experiments in which paralytic agents are used must be justified. Patient identity should be concealed. All manuscripts are sent out for blind peer review to editorial board members or outside reviewers. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience is a member of Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium.