Spin and reporting in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry

Felipe de Araújo Sensever; Charles Phillipe de Lucena Alves; Giana da S Lima; Bas Loomans; Niek Opdam; Tatiana Pereira-Cenci

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104282

Spin and reporting in systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry

J Dent. 2022 Oct:125:104282. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104282. Epub 2022 Sep 7.

Authors

Felipe de Araújo Sensever¹, Charles Phillipe de Lucena Alves², Giana da S Lima¹, Bas Loomans³, Niek Opdam³, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci⁴

Affiliations

¹ Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, R. Gonçalves Chaves 457, Pelotas 96015-560, Brazil.
² Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, R. Mal Deodoro, 1160, Pelotas, RS 96020-220, Brazil.
³ Department of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, Nijmegen 6525 EX, the Netherlands.
⁴ Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, R. Gonçalves Chaves 457, Pelotas 96015-560, Brazil; Department of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Philips van Leydenlaan 25, Nijmegen 6525 EX, the Netherlands. Electronic address: Tatiana.pereira-cenci@radboudumc.nl.

PMID: 36084762
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104282

Abstract

Objective: To estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews with metanalysis (SRMAs) in restorative dentistry.

Methods: Inclusion criteria were SRMAs of randomized clinical trials of restorative dentistry on survival, success, or failure rates of treatment in humans, with no language or year restriction. SRMAs performed with non-RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched from inception to April 2022. Outcomes were the prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text. Data were reported through means and standard deviations or absolute and relative frequencies. Spin in each item was considered low when occurring in less than 25% of the papers, moderate (25 to 75%), or high (more than 75%).

Results: We identified 7029 studies and 49 unique manuscripts were included. There was a moderate presence of spin in the abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% did not report adverse events; while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding completeness of reporting, there was poor reporting for most items in the abstract while there was an adequate report in full texts, except for register name and registration number (not reported in 32.7%).

Conclusions: Abstract of SRMAs in restorative dentistry should be better reported. Spin and poor reporting were more frequent in the abstracts, which misleads readers and could lead to inadequate clinical recommendations.

Clinical significance: Spin and incomplete reporting are a threat to evidence-based practice, especially in systematic reviews. Therefore, care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders should be aware of the possibility of spin in systematic reviews and other sources to prevent misinterpretation, which could lead to inadequate decisions and treatments.

Keywords: Dentistry and bias; Meta-research; Misleading interpretation; Misleading reporting; Review.

Publication types

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

MeSH terms

Bibliometrics
Dentistry*
Humans
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Research Report*
Systematic Reviews as Topic