Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review.

IF 2.8 1区哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-08 DOI:10.1080/08989621.2023.2269083

Yunkyoung Oh, Youn-Joo Jung, Purja Sujata, Minji Kim, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Kyuyeon Cho, Ai Koyanagi, Zhaoli Dai, Lee Smith, Jae Il Shin, Eunyoung Kim

{"title":"Spin in randomized controlled trials of pharmacology in COVID-19: A systematic review.","authors":"Yunkyoung Oh, Youn-Joo Jung, Purja Sujata, Minji Kim, Dong Keon Yon, Seung Won Lee, Kyuyeon Cho, Ai Koyanagi, Zhaoli Dai, Lee Smith, Jae Il Shin, Eunyoung Kim","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2023.2269083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Spin, defined as the misrepresentation of the results of a study, could negate the validity of scientific findings. To explore the manifestation of spin, and identify the factors affecting spin in COVID-19 RCTs, a systematic review was performed from PubMed/Medline, National Institutes of Health, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. RCTs on pharmacotherapy for COVID-19 with nonsignificant primary outcomes published in 2020 were included. 21 abstracts (33.9%) and 28 main texts (45.2%) were found to contain spin in at least one section. In the conclusion section, other spin strategies beautifying their findings that were not included in the abstract were found in the main texts. More factors influencing the level of spin were found in abstracts than in the main texts, but most of the levels of spin in abstracts were comparable to those in the main texts. Although common factors that affected the manifestation of spin in the main texts and abstracts were the sample size and type of journal, further research to determine multicollinearity between significant factors and the manifestation of spin is required.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"214-232"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2023.2269083","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Spin, defined as the misrepresentation of the results of a study, could negate the validity of scientific findings. To explore the manifestation of spin, and identify the factors affecting spin in COVID-19 RCTs, a systematic review was performed from PubMed/Medline, National Institutes of Health, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science. RCTs on pharmacotherapy for COVID-19 with nonsignificant primary outcomes published in 2020 were included. 21 abstracts (33.9%) and 28 main texts (45.2%) were found to contain spin in at least one section. In the conclusion section, other spin strategies beautifying their findings that were not included in the abstract were found in the main texts. More factors influencing the level of spin were found in abstracts than in the main texts, but most of the levels of spin in abstracts were comparable to those in the main texts. Although common factors that affected the manifestation of spin in the main texts and abstracts were the sample size and type of journal, further research to determine multicollinearity between significant factors and the manifestation of spin is required.

查看原文本刊更多论文

新冠肺炎药理学的自旋随机对照试验：系统综述。

目的：Spin，被定义为对研究结果的歪曲，可能会否定科学发现的有效性。我们旨在评估早期发表的新冠肺炎药物治疗随机对照试验中的自旋（主要结果不显著），探讨自旋的表现，并确定影响新冠肺炎随机对照试验自旋的因素。方法：通过检索PubMed/Medline、美国国立卫生研究院、EMBASE、Cochrane和Web of Science的随机对照试验进行系统综述。纳入了2020年发表的新冠肺炎药物治疗主要结果不显著的随机对照试验。结果：在收录的文章中，21篇摘要（33.9%）和28篇正文（45.2%）至少有一节含有旋转。在结论部分，在主要文本中发现了其他美化他们发现的旋转策略，这些策略没有包含在摘要中。尽管在单变量分析中，专业医学期刊和纳入的随机对照试验的样本量较小是与两篇摘要中较高的旋转几率相关的常见因素，但在多变量分析中它们并不是旋转的显著预测因素。摘要中影响旋转水平的因素比正文中更多，但摘要中的大多数旋转水平与正文中的旋转水平相当。结论：尽管影响主要文本和摘要中旋转表现的常见因素是样本量和期刊类型，但还需要进一步研究确定显著因素与旋转表现之间的多重共线性。

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

Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance MEDICAL ETHICS-

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

14.70%

发文量

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.