Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the scientific process. However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from a straightforward analysis thereof. Authors have broad latitude when writing their reports and may be tempted to consciously or unconsciously “spin” their study findings. Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers. This article, based on a literature review, reports the various practices of spin from misreporting by “beautification” of methods to misreporting by misinterpreting the results. It provides data on the prevalence of some forms of spin in specific fields and the possible effects of some types of spin on readers’ interpretation and research dissemination. We also discuss why researchers would spin their reports and possible ways to avoid it.

[1]  I. Boutron,et al.  Dissemination of 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial results: a systematic review of scholarly and media attention over 7 months , 2017, BMJ Open.

[2]  Thomas Arrison,et al.  FOSTERING INTEGRITY IN RESEARCH , 2017 .

[3]  S. Killeen,et al.  Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes Published in High-impact Surgical Journals , 2017, Annals of surgery.

[4]  M. Edwards,et al.  Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition , 2017, Environmental engineering science.

[5]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  A manifesto for reproducible science , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[6]  I. Boutron,et al.  Peer reviewers identified spin in manuscripts of nonrandomized studies assessing therapeutic interventions, but their impact on spin in abstract conclusions was limited. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  B. Goldacre,et al.  Outcomes in the trial registry should match those in the protocol , 2016, The Lancet.

[8]  David Moher,et al.  A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[9]  K. Bhaskaran,et al.  Impact of statin related media coverage on use of statins: interrupted time series analysis with UK primary care data , 2016, British Medical Journal.

[10]  Elisabeth M. Bik,et al.  The Prevalence of Inappropriate Image Duplication in Biomedical Research Publications , 2016, mBio.

[11]  Susann Fiedler,et al.  Badges to Acknowledge Open Practices: A Simple, Low-Cost, Effective Method for Increasing Transparency , 2016, PLoS biology.

[12]  David Moher,et al.  Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research: who's listening? , 2016, The Lancet.

[13]  N. Lazar,et al.  The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose , 2016 .

[14]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Evolution of Reporting P Values in the Biomedical Literature, 1990-2015. , 2016, JAMA.

[15]  L. Trinquart,et al.  Why do we think we know what we know? A metaknowledge analysis of the salt controversy. , 2016, International journal of epidemiology.

[16]  Willem M Otte,et al.  Use of positive and negative words in scientific PubMed abstracts between 1974 and 2014: retrospective analysis , 2015, British Medical Journal.

[17]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention , 2015, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[18]  R. Nuzzo How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop , 2015, Nature.

[19]  S. Wexner,et al.  Spin Is Common in Studies Assessing Robotic Colorectal Surgery: An Assessment of Reporting and Interpretation of Study Results , 2015, Diseases of the colon and rectum.

[20]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Self-correction in science at work , 2015, Science.

[21]  Jonathan Taylor,et al.  Statistical learning and selective inference , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[22]  R. Lanfear,et al.  The Extent and Consequences of P-Hacking in Science , 2015, PLoS biology.

[23]  M. Schuemie,et al.  Use of Adjectives in Abstracts when Reporting Results of Randomized, Controlled Trials from Industry and Academia , 2015, Drugs in R&D.

[24]  Bruce Alberts,et al.  Opinion: Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  Jordan D Dworkin,et al.  Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review. , 2015, The journal of pain : official journal of the American Pain Society.

[26]  Braunwald,et al.  Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[27]  E. Wager,et al.  Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors , 2014, Prilozi.

[28]  I. Boutron,et al.  Impact of adding a limitations section to abstracts of systematic reviews on readers’ interpretation: a randomized controlled trial , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[29]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[30]  Adrien Treuille,et al.  Scientific rigor through videogames. , 2014, Trends in biochemical sciences.

[31]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Assessing value in biomedical research: the PQRST of appraisal and reward. , 2014, JAMA.

[32]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Evidence for the Selective Reporting of Analyses and Discrepancies in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Cohort Studies of Clinical Trials , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[33]  N. Jewell,et al.  Should people at low risk of cardiovascular disease take a statin? , 2014, BDJ.

[34]  Harold Varmus,et al.  Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  A. Amos A review of spin and bias use in the early intervention in psychosis literature. , 2014, The primary care companion for CNS disorders.

[36]  Robert L Grant,et al.  Converting an odds ratio to a range of plausible relative risks for better communication of research findings , 2014, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[37]  Kevin W Boyack,et al.  A list of highly influential biomedical researchers, 1996–2011 , 2013, European journal of clinical investigation.

[38]  Mark A Burgman,et al.  Policy: Twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims , 2013, Nature.

[39]  J. Dumville,et al.  “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes , 2013, Trials.

[40]  D. Allison,et al.  Belief beyond the evidence: using the proposed effect of breakfast on obesity to show 2 practices that distort scientific evidence. , 2013, The American journal of clinical nutrition.

[41]  Aseem Malhotra,et al.  Saturated fat is not the major issue , 2013, BMJ.

[42]  B. Giraudeau,et al.  Study Design and Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Chronic Idiopathic or Autoimmune Urticaria: Review , 2013, PloS one.

[43]  Adrian V. Hernández,et al.  Deficient Reporting and Interpretation of Non-Inferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in HIV Patients: A Systematic Review , 2013, PloS one.

[44]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of "spin". , 2013, Radiology.

[45]  I. Tannock,et al.  Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer. , 2013, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[46]  R. Chou,et al.  Screening for Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[47]  F. Rivara,et al.  Spin and boasting in research articles. , 2012, Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine.

[48]  Isabelle Boutron,et al.  Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study , 2012, PLoS medicine.

[49]  C. Booth,et al.  Discordance between conclusions stated in the abstract and conclusions in the article: analysis of published randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy in lung cancer. , 2012, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[50]  Erik B. Erhardt,et al.  Data Visualization in the Neurosciences: Overcoming the Curse of Dimensionality , 2012, Neuron.

[51]  P. Ravaud,et al.  Misleading abstract conclusions in randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: comparison of the abstract conclusions and the results section. , 2012, Joint, bone, spine : revue du rhumatisme.

[52]  G. Loewenstein,et al.  Measuring the Prevalence of Questionable Research Practices With Incentives for Truth Telling , 2012, Psychological science.

[53]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Risk factors and interventions with statistically significant tiny effects. , 2011, International journal of epidemiology.

[54]  Daniele Fanelli,et al.  Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries , 2011, Scientometrics.

[55]  R. Brand,et al.  Testing for the presence of positive-outcome bias in peer review: a randomized controlled trial. , 2010, Archives of internal medicine.

[56]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[57]  I. Cuthill,et al.  Reporting : The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research , 2010 .

[58]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. , 2010, JAMA.

[59]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[60]  David Moher,et al.  Comparison of registered and published primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials. , 2009, JAMA.

[61]  D. Moher,et al.  Randomized trials published in some Chinese journals: how many are randomized? , 2009, Trials.

[62]  J. Ware,et al.  Translating statistical findings into plain English , 2009, The Lancet.

[63]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research. , 2009, Clinical chemistry.

[64]  G. Guyatt,et al.  How to use an article about genetic association: C: What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? , 2009, JAMA.

[65]  Rachael Gooberman-Hill,et al.  Complex interventions to improve physical function and maintain independent living in elderly people: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2008, The Lancet.

[66]  Gabriele Siciliano,et al.  Lithium delays progression of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , 2008, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[67]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[68]  R. Fletcher,et al.  "Spin" in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. , 2007, Medicine and law.

[69]  I. Boutron,et al.  Methodological issues in trials assessing primary prophylaxis of venous thrombo-embolism. , 2006, European heart journal.

[70]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.

[71]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005 .

[72]  J. Ioannidis Why Most Published Research Findings Are False , 2005, PLoS medicine.

[73]  S. Evans,et al.  The effect of scientific misconduct on the results of clinical trials: a Delphi survey. , 2005, Contemporary clinical trials.

[74]  K. Schulz,et al.  Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses , 2005, The Lancet.

[75]  Helen Pearson Image manipulation: CSI: cell biology , 2005, Nature.

[76]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Users' guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[77]  M. Falagas,et al.  Addressing the Limitations of Structured Abstracts , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[78]  Kenneth M. Yamada,et al.  What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation , 2004, The Journal of cell biology.

[79]  A. Hrõbjartsson,et al.  Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. , 2004, JAMA.

[80]  M. Pepe,et al.  Limitations of the odds ratio in gauging the performance of a diagnostic, prognostic, or screening marker. , 2004, American journal of epidemiology.

[81]  Christiane,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2004, Journal international de bioethique = International journal of bioethics.

[82]  Wolzt,et al.  World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. , 2003, The Journal of the American College of Dentists.

[83]  L. HARKing: Hypothesizing After the Results are Known , 2002 .

[84]  N. Desbiens Lessons Learned from Attempts To Establish the Blind in Placebo-Controlled Trials of Zinc for the Common Cold , 2000, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[85]  R. J. Hayes,et al.  Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology , 1996, BMJ.

[86]  T Greenhalgh,et al.  Commentary: Scientific heads are not turned by rhetoric , 1995, BMJ.

[87]  R. Horton The rhetoric of research , 1995, BMJ.

[88]  D. Phillips,et al.  Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. , 1991, The New England journal of medicine.

[89]  B. Farr,et al.  The problems of taste in placebo matching: an evaluation of zinc gluconate for the common cold. , 1987, Journal of chronic diseases.