Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 6, 2025
A Teleoperated Robotic System-Assisted Percutaneous Transiliac-Transsacral Screw Fixation Technique
Published on: January 6, 2023
Spin is present in the majority of articles evaluating robot-assisted groin hernia repair: a systematic review
Danni Lip Hansen1, Siv Fonnes2, Jacob Rosenberg2
1Centre for Perioperative Optimisation, Department of Surgery, Herlev and Gentofte Hospitals, University of Copenhagen, Herlev, Borgmester Ib Juuls Vej 1, 2730, Herlev, Denmark. lip.dlh.h@gmail.com.
Background:
The number of scientific articles published each year is increasing, resulting in greater competition to get work published. Spin is defined as specific reporting strategies used to distort the readers' interpretation of results so that they are viewed more favorable. However, prevalence of spin in studies comparing robot-assisted groin hernia repair with traditional methods is unknown.
Objectives/Aim:
To determine the frequency and extent of spin in studies assessing robot-assisted groin hernia repair.
Methods:
This systematic review was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and a protocol was registered at PROSPERO before data extraction. Database search included PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central.
Results:
Of 35 included studies, spin was present in 57%. Within these, 95% had spin present in the abstract and 80% in the conclusion of the article. There was no association between study size and spin (p > 0.05). However, presence of spin in studies positively minded towards robot-assisted hernia repair was higher (p < 0.001) compared with those against or being neutral in their view of the procedure. Furthermore, being funded by or receiving grants from Intuitive Surgical were associated with a higher prevalence of spin (p < 0.05) compared with those who were not.
Conclusion:
Spin was found to be common in articles reporting on robot-assisted groin hernia repair, and presence of spin was higher in studies funded by or receiving grants from the robot company. This suggests that readers should be cautious when reading similar literature.
