Do infographics ‘spin’ the findings of health and medical research?

Abstract

Objective To compare the prevalence of ‘spin’, and specific reporting strategies for spin, between infographics, abstracts and full texts of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting non-significant findings in the field of health and medicine and to assess factors associated with the presence of spin. Design Cross-sectional observational study. Data source Publications in top quintile health and medical journals from August 2018 to October 2020 (Journal Citation Reports database). Eligibility criteria Infographics, abstracts and full texts of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome. Main outcome(s) and measure(s) Presence of spin (any spin and spin in the results and conclusions of infographics, abstracts and full texts). Exposure(s) Conflicts of interest, industry sponsorship, trial registration, journal impact factor, spin in the abstract, spin in the full text. Results 119 studies from 40 journals were included. One-third (33%) of infographics contained spin. Infographics were not more likely to contain any spin than abstracts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4) or full texts (33% vs 26%, OR 1.4; 95% CI 0.8 to 2.4). Higher journal impact factor was associated with slightly lower odds of spin in infographics and full texts, but not abstracts. Infographics, but not abstracts or full texts, were less likely to contain spin if the trial was prospectively registered. No other significant associations were found. Conclusions Nearly one-third of infographics spin the findings of RCTs with non-significant results for a primary outcome, but the prevalence of spin is not higher than in abstracts and full texts. Given the increasing popularity of infographics to disseminate research findings, there is an urgent need to improve the reporting of research in infographics. Data are available on reasonable request. Original data may be made available by the authors on reasonable request.