Editor's Choice
Am J Sports Med. 2024 Feb 7;3635465231213039 doi: 10.1177/03635465231213039.
POPULATION:
Patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (25 studies). INTERVENTION:Systematic review to evaluate the presence of spin bias in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP with rotator cuff repair surgery. COMPARISON: OUTCOME:Each included study was evaluated for the 15 most common forms of spin. Correlations between spin types and study characteristics were evaluated. At least 1 form of spin bias was found in 56% (14/25) of the included studies. In regard to the 3 different categories of spin, a form of misleading interpretation was found in 56% (14/25) of the studies. A form of misleading reporting was found in 48% (12/25) of the studies. A form of inappropriate extrapolation was found in 16% (4/25) of the studies. A significant association was found between misleading interpretation and publication year (odds ratio (OR) 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI [1.04, 1.92]) and misleading reporting and publication year (OR 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI [1.02, 1.95]). An association was found between inappropriate extrapolation and journal impact factor (OR 0.21 per unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI [0.044, 0.99]).
BACKGROUND:
The use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in orthopaedics continues to increase. One common use of PRP is as an adjunct in rotator cuff repair surgery. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have summarized the data on PRP use in rotator cuff repair surgery. However, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are subject to spin bias, where authors' interpretations of results influence readers' interpretations. PURPOSE:To evaluate spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP with rotator cuff repair surgery. STUDY DESIGN:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS:A PubMed and Embase search was conducted using the terms rotator cuff repair and PRP and systematic review or meta-analysis. After review of 74 initial studies, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. Study characteristics were documented, and each study was evaluated for the 15 most common forms of spin and using the AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, Version 2) rating system. Correlations between spin types and study characteristics were evaluated using binary logistic regression for continuous independent variables and a chi-square test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. RESULTS:At least 1 form of spin was found in 56% (14/25) of the included studies. In regard to the 3 different categories of spin, a form of misleading interpretation was found in 56% (14/25) of the studies. A form of misleading reporting was found in 48% (12/25) of the studies. A form of inappropriate extrapolation was found in 16% (4/25) of the studies. A significant association was found between misleading interpretation and publication year (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI, 1.04-1.92; P = .029) and misleading reporting and publication year (OR, 1.41 per year increase in publication; 95% CI, 1.02-1.95; P = .037). An association was found between inappropriate extrapolation and journal impact factor (OR, 0.21 per unit increase in impact factor; 95% CI, 0.044-0.99; P = .048). CONCLUSION:A significant amount of spin was found in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of PRP use in rotator cuff repair surgery. Given the increasing use of PRP by clinicians and interest among patients, spin found in these studies may have a significant effect on clinical practice. |
|
|
Editor's Choice
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024 Jan 16;6(1):100851 doi: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100851.
POPULATION:
Patients with hip osteoarthritis (15 systematic reviews). INTERVENTION:Systematic review to describe the incidence and types of spin bias in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma injections for hip osteoarthritis and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin. COMPARISON: OUTCOME:All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration.
PURPOSE:
To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin. METHODS:The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics. RESULTS:Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. CONCLUSIONS:Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE:It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias. |