Chiu 2017 PLOS Biol: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "{{Publication |title=Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017) `Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLoS Biology 15(9): e2002173. |info=https:/...") Β |
No edit summary Β |
||
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017) `Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLoS Biology 15(9): e2002173. | |title=Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017) `Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLoS Biology 15(9): e2002173. | ||
|info=https:// | |info=[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28892482/ PMID:28892482 Open Access] | ||
|authors=Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L | |authors=Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L | ||
|year=2017 | |year=2017 | ||
|journal= | |journal=PLOS Biol | ||
|abstract=In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readersβ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research | |abstract=In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readersβ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research | ||
|editor=[[Iglesias-Gonzalez J]] | |editor=[[Iglesias-Gonzalez J]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Cited by == | |||
{{Template:Cited by Iglesias-Gonzalez 2021 MitoFit PT}} | |||
{{Labeling | {{Labeling | ||
|additional=Publication efficiency | |additional=Publication efficiency, MitoFit 2021 PT | ||
}} | }} |
Latest revision as of 12:16, 26 January 2021
Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017) `Spin' in published biomedical literature: A methodological systematic review. PLoS Biology 15(9): e2002173. |
Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L (2017) PLOS Biol
Abstract: In the scientific literature, spin refers to reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers so that results are viewed in a more favourable light. The presence of spin in biomedical research can negatively impact the development of further studies, clinical practice, and health policies. This systematic review aims to explore the nature and prevalence of spin in the biomedical literature. We searched MEDLINE, PreMEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and hand searched reference lists for all reports that included the measurement of spin in the biomedical literature for at least 1 outcome. Two independent coders extracted data on the characteristics of reports and their included studies and all spin-related outcomes. Results were grouped inductively into themes by spin-related outcome and are presented as a narrative synthesis. We used meta-analyses to analyse the association of spin with industry sponsorship of research. We included 35 reports, which investigated spin in clinical trials, observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. The nature of spin varied according to study design. The highest (but also greatest) variability in the prevalence of spin was present in trials. Some of the common practices used to spin results included detracting from statistically nonsignificant results and inappropriately using causal language. Source of funding was hypothesised by a few authors to be a factor associated with spin; however, results were inconclusive, possibly due to the heterogeneity of the included papers. Further research is needed to assess the impact of spin on readersβ decision-making. Editors and peer reviewers should be familiar with the prevalence and manifestations of spin in their area of research in order to ensure accurate interpretation and dissemination of research
β’ Bioblast editor: Iglesias-Gonzalez J
Cited by
- Iglesias-Gonzalez et al (2021) Proficiency test in mt-respiration: A necessary tool for reliable and reproducible results. MitoFit Preprints 2021 (in prep).
Labels:
Publication efficiency, MitoFit 2021 PT