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. |