'Spin' in reports of clinical research

Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 201-202

  Mahtani, Kamal R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL RESEARCH; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; STATISTICAL BIAS;

BIAS; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84994558597     PISSN: 13565524     EISSN: 14736810     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/ebmed-2016-110570     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. The EQUATOR Network|Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research. http://www.equator-network. org/(accessed 8 Sep 2016).
2. Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 2010;303:2058-64.
3. Vera-Badillo FE, Napoleone M, Krzyzanowska MK, et al. Bias in reporting of randomised clinical trials in oncology. Eur J Cancer 2016;61:29-35.
4. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, et al. Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:380-6.e1.
5. Useem J, Brennan A, LaValley M, et al. Systematic differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses on the same topic: a matched pair analysis. PLoS ONE 2015;10: e0144980.
6. Lieb K, von der Osten-Sacken J, Stoffers-Winterling J, et al. Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2016;6:e010606.
7. Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:56-65.
8. Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, et al. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:4120-6.
9. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001308.
10. Landefeld CS, Shojania KG, Auerbach AD. Should we use large scale healthcare interventions without clear evidence that benefits outweigh costs and harms? No. BMJ 2008;336:1277.
11. Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, et al. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2013;10: e1001578; discussion e1001578.
12. PLoS Medicine Editors. Making sense of non-financial competing interests. PLoS Med 2008;5:e199.
13. RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidencebased Practice Center. Identifying and managing nonfinancial conflicts of interest for systematic reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2013.
14. Munder T, Gerger H, Trelle S, et al. Testing the allegiance bias hypothesis: a meta-analysis. Psychother Res 2011;21:670-84.
15. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009;374:86-9.
16. Berkman ND, Santaguida PL, Viswanathan M, et al. The empirical evidence of bias in trials measuring treatment differences. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2014.