Background: "Spin" is a form of reporting bias where there is an misappropriated presentation of study results, often overstating efficacy or understating harms. Abstracts of systematic reviews in other clinical domains have been demonstrated to employ spin, which may lead to clinical recommendations that are not justified by the literature.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of spin strategies in abstracts of plastic surgery systematic reviews.
Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL, to identify all systematic reviews published in the top five plastic surgery journals from 2015-2021. Screening, data extraction, and spin analysis were performed by two independent reviewers. Data checking of the spin analysis was performed by a plastic surgery resident with graduate level training in clinical epidemiology.
Results: From an initial search of 826 systematic reviews, 60 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Various types of spin were identified in 73% of systematic review abstracts (n=44). "Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies," was the most prevalent type of spin and was identified in 63% of systematic reviews (n=38). There were no significant associations between the presence of spin and study characteristics.
Conclusions: The present study found that 73% of abstracts in plastic surgery systematic reviews contain spin. Although systemic reviews represent the highest level of evidence, readers should be aware of types of "spin" when interpreting results and incorporating recommendations into patient care.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Aesthetic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.