Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study

Audrey Wise; Deepika Mannem; Wade Arthur; Ryan Ottwell; Benjamin Greiner; Derek Srouji; Daniel Wildes; Micah Hartwell; Drew N Wright; Jam Khojasteh; Matthew Vassar

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049421

Spin within systematic review abstracts on antiplatelet therapies after acute coronary syndrome: a cross-sectional study

BMJ Open. 2022 Aug 2;12(8):e049421. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049421.

Authors

Audrey Wise¹, Deepika Mannem², Wade Arthur³, Ryan Ottwell³, Benjamin Greiner⁴, Derek Srouji⁵, Daniel Wildes⁵, Micah Hartwell^{3

6}, Drew N Wright⁷, Jam Khojasteh⁸, Matthew Vassar^{3

6}

Affiliations

¹ Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA audrey.wise@okstate.edu.
² Arkansas College of Osteopathic Medicine, Fort Smith, Arkansas, USA.
³ Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
⁴ The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston Department of Internal Medicine, Galveston, Texas, USA.
⁵ Cardiology, Oklahoma State University Medical Center, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
⁶ Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.
⁷ Samuel J. Wood Library & C.V. Starr Biomedical Information Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, New York, USA.
⁸ School of Educational Foundations, Leadership and Aviation, Oklahoma State University - Tulsa, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA.

Abstract

Objectives: Spin is a reporting practice in which study results are misrepresented by overestimating efficacy or underestimating harm. Prevalence of spin varies between clinical specialties, and estimates are based almost entirely on clinical trials. Little is known about spin in systematic reviews.

Design: We performed a cross-sectional analysis searching MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to antiplatelet therapies following acute coronary syndrome on 2 June 2020. Data were extracted evaluating the presence of spin and study characteristics, including methodological quality as rated by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). All data extraction was conducted in a masked, duplicate manner from 2 June 2020 to 26 June 2020.

Participants and setting: Not applicable.

Primary and secondary outcome measures: We assessed abstracts of systematic reviews on antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndrome and evaluated the prevalence of the nine most severe types of spin. We additionally explored associations between spin and certain study characteristics, including quality.

Results: Our searches returned 15 263 articles, and 185 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Of these 185 reviews, 31.9% (59/185) contained some form of spin in the abstract. Seven forms of spin (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 9) among the nine most severe were identified. No instances of types 6 or 8 were found. There were no statistically significant relationships between spin and the evaluated study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 appraisals.

Conclusions: Spin was present in abstracts for systematic reviews and meta-analyses; subsequent studies are needed to identify correlations between spin and specific study characteristics. There were no statistically significant associations between spin and study characteristics or AMSTAR-2 ratings; however, implementing changes will ensure that spin is reduced in the field of cardiology as well as other fields of medicine.

Keywords: Adult cardiology; Coronary heart disease; Ischaemic heart disease; Myocardial infarction.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Acute Coronary Syndrome* / drug therapy
Bias*
Cross-Sectional Studies
Humans
Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors* / therapeutic use
Systematic Reviews as Topic

Substances

Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors