Skip to main content

Table 4 Types of spin in reviews that did or did not seek adverse effects of interventions

From: Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

Definitions of the three types of spin

Reviews that sought adverse effects of interventions

Reviews that did not seek adverse effects of interventions

Misleading reporting (in the abstract) on adverse effects of interventions:

“Incomplete or inadequate reporting in the abstract on the results of adverse effects compared with what is reported in the main text of the manuscript, which could be misleading for the reader.”

Categories:

(1) Not reporting in the abstract on the results of the adverse effects that were reported in the main text of the review.

(2) Selective reporting in the abstract on the results of the adverse effects that were reported in the main text of the review.

Categories:

(1) Reporting on results of adverse effects in the abstract when adverse effects were not sought.

(2) Reporting in the abstract that adverse effects were sought when they were not sought.

Misleading interpretation (in the abstract) on adverse effects of interventions:

“Interpretation in the abstract on the results of adverse effects that is not consistent with what is reported in the main text of the manuscript and underestimates the adverse effects of the intervention.”

Categories:

(1) Claiming in the abstract that the intervention is safe (has no or minimal adverse effects), despite concerning results on the adverse effects in the main text of the review, e.g., based on non-statistically significant results on adverse effects with wide confidence intervals [17].

(2) Downgrading in the abstract the importance of the adverse effects, despite concerning results on the adverse effects in the main text of the review.

(3) Recommendations are made in the abstract for clinical practice that are not congruent with the concerning results on the adverse effects in the main text of the review [17].

Categories:

(1) Claiming in the abstract that the intervention is safe (has no or minimal adverse effects) despite not having sought adverse effects.

(2) Downgrading in the abstract the importance of the adverse effects, despite not having sought adverse effects.

(3) Recommendations are made in the abstract for clinical practice despite not having sought adverse effects.

Misleading extrapolation (in the abstract) on adverse effects of interventions:

“Overgeneralisation in the abstract of the study results to different populations, interventions, outcomes or settings than were assessed in the study despite evidence in the main text on concerning adverse effects on a different population, intervention, outcome or setting.”

Categories:

(1) Results are extrapolated in the abstract to another population, intervention, outcome, or setting than were assessed in the review despite evidence in the main text on concerning adverse effects on a different population, intervention, outcome or setting.

Categories:

(1) Results are extrapolated in the abstract to another population, intervention, outcome, or setting than were assessed in the review despite not having sought adverse effects.