Analysis of Spin in the Reporting of Studies on Electroanalgesia for Musculoskeletal Pain

Objective

The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality of reporting and presence of spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the use of electroanalgesia for musculoskeletal pain.

Methods

The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched from 2010 to June 2021. Inclusion criteria were RCTs using electroanalgesia in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, written in any language, comparing 2 or more groups, and with pain as 1 of the outcomes. Two blinded, independent, and calibrated evaluators (Gwet's AC1 agreement analysis) performed eligibility and data extraction. General characteristics, report of outcomes, quality of reporting (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts [CONSORT-A]), and spin analysis (7-item spin checklist and spin analysis per section) were extracted from abstracts.

Results

Of 989 studies selected, 173 abstracts were analyzed after screening and eligibility criteria. Mean risk of bias on the PEDro scale was 6.02 ± 1.6 points. Most abstracts did not report significant differences for primary (51.4%) and secondary (63%) outcomes. Mean quality of reporting was 5.10 ± 2.4 points in the CONSORT-A, and spin was 2.97 ± 1.7. Abstracts had at least 1 type of spin (93%), and the conclusion presented the greatest number of spin types. More than 50% of abstracts recommended an intervention without significant differences between groups.

Conclusion

This study found that the majority of RCT abstracts on electroanalgesia for musculoskeletal conditions in our sample had a moderate to high risk of bias, incomplete or missing information, and some type of spin. We recommend that health care providers who use electroanalgesia and the scientific community be aware of spin in published studies.