A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity

Objectives: We aimed to 1) identify and classify spin (i.e., a description that overstates efficacy and/or understates harm) in systematic reviews and 2) rank spin in abstracts of systematic reviews according to their severity (i.e., the likelihood of distorting readers’ interpretation of the results). Study Design: First, we used a four-phase consensus process to develop a classification of different types of spin. Second we ranked the types of spin in abstracts according to their severity using a Q-sort survey with members of the Cochrane Collaboration. Results: We identified 39 types of spin, 28 from the main text and 21 from the abstract; 13 were specific to the systematic review design. Spin was classified into 3 categories: (1) misleading reporting, (2) misleading interpretation and (3) inappropriate extrapolation. Spin ranked as the most severe by the 122 people who participated in the survey were 1) recommendations for clinical practice not supported by findings in the conclusion, 2) misleading title and 3) selective reporting. Conclusion: This study allowed for identifying spin that is likely to distort interpretation. Our classification could help authors, editors and reviewers avoid spin in reports of systematic reviews

Media Coverage of Medical Journals: Do the Best Articles Make the News?

BACKGROUND: News coverage of medical research is followed closely by many Americans and affects the practice of medicine and influence of scientific research. Prior work has examined the quality of media coverage, but no investigation has characterized the choice of stories covered in a controlled manner. We examined whether the media systematically covers stories of weaker study design. METHODS: We compared study characteristics of 75 clinically-oriented journal articles that received coverage in the top five newspapers by circulation against 75 clinically-oriented journal articles that appeared in the top five medical journals by impact factor over a similar timespan. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether differences between investigations from both sources varied by study type (randomized controlled trial [RCT] or observational study). RESULTS: Investigations receiving coverage from newspapers were less likely to be RCTs (17% vs. 35%, p = 0.016) and more likely to be observational studies (75% vs. 47%, p<0.001). No difference was observed in number of people studied (median: 1034 vs. 1901, p = 0.14) or length of follow-up (median: 1.80 vs. 1.00 years, p = 0.22). In subgroup analysis, observational studies from the media used smaller sample sizes (median: 1984 vs. 21136, p = 0.029) and were more likely to be cross-sectional (71% vs. 31%, p<0.001), while no differences were observed for RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Newspapers were more likely to cover observational studies and less likely to cover RCTs than high impact journals. Additionally, when the media does cover observational studies, they select articles of inferior quality. Newspapers preferentially cover medical research with weaker methodology