Prevalencia de "spin" en revisiones sistemáticas de revistas de rehabilitación: estudio metaepidemiológico

Systematic reviews (SRs) are crucial for evidence-based medicine, but authors may add spin. This study investigated the prevalence of spin in abstracts and main texts of SRs published in rehabilitation journals and explored associated factors.

This meta-epidemiological study secondary analysis 200 SRs from rehabilitation journals (2020-2022) focusing on pairwise meta-analyses of health interventions. Two independent reviewers extracted data. Spin was defined as reporting that highlights a beneficial effect greater than shown by results. We classified spin into misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, inappropriate extrapolation, and multiple spins based on analysis of the main text and abstract.

Spin was present in 154 (77.0%) SRs in the main text and 151 (75.5%) in the abstract. Misleading interpretation was the most common category (86.4% in main text, 85.4% in abstract). PRISMA 2020 use was associated with reduced spin (Odds ratio (OR) 0.27 [95% CI; 0.13-0.57] for main text; OR 0.39 [95% CI: 0.20-0.76] for abstract).

There is a high prevalence of spin in SRs published in rehabilitation journals. To avoid spin in the SRs of rehabilitation journals, the authors must adhere to guidelines, such as PRISMA 2020.