Title: The Prevalence of 'Spin' in Psychiatry Journal Abstracts
Written on
Chapter 1: Understanding 'Spin' in Clinical Abstracts
The term 'spin' refers to the practice of overstating the clinical relevance of a treatment without sufficient statistical support. Recent research indicates that this phenomenon is evident in more than half of the abstracts from clinical trials published in leading psychology and psychiatry journals. This situation raises alarms about the potential influence on treatment decisions, as even abstract-level information can significantly sway physicians' opinions, according to the study's authors.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are viewed as the pinnacle of evidence and can greatly affect clinical practices. However, while researchers are urged to present their findings transparently, they often have the leeway to interpret results subjectively.
This selective reporting can lead to a distorted portrayal of the findings within an abstract, which is meant to encapsulate the entire study.
Section 1.1: Research Methodology
To assess the frequency of spin in abstracts, the researchers conducted a thorough review of the PubMed database, focusing on RCTs concerning psychiatric and behavioral interventions published between 2012 and 2017 across six premier psychology and psychiatry journals. They narrowed their analysis to 116 trials where the primary outcomes were not statistically significant and applied an established definition of spin to evaluate how often researchers had misrepresented their results.
Section 1.2: Findings and Implications
The researchers found that spin was present in the abstracts of 65 (56%) of the reviewed trials, manifesting in various sections: 2% in titles, 21% in results, and 49% in conclusions. Notably, in 17 trials (15%), spin appeared in both the results and conclusion sections.
Subsection 1.2.1: Impact of Industry Funding
Interestingly, spin was more prevalent in trials that compared a specific drug or behavioral method against a placebo or standard care. However, the study revealed that industry funding did not correlate with an increased likelihood of spin; only 10 of the 65 trials exhibiting spin had any degree of industry sponsorship.
Chapter 2: Ethical Considerations in Reporting
The study authors acknowledge that their conclusions may not be universally applicable to all psychiatry and psychology journals. They recognize that, despite employing objective criteria for defining spin, the evaluations were inherently subjective.
“Researchers must adhere to ethical standards by accurately and transparently reporting their findings. Misleading abstracts could confuse physicians who rely on this information to make informed treatment choices, especially since most clinicians typically only read the abstract,” the authors note.
“Clinical trial authors are aware of their limited time and space to engage readers. Consequently, positive outcomes tend to be emphasized, leading some authors to adopt dubious reporting techniques to enhance their results,” they add.
Samuel Jellison, Will Roberts, Aaron Bowers, Tyler Combs, Jason Beaman, Cole Wayant, Matt Vassar
Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine; 10.1136/bmjebm-2019–111176