Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE We aimed to assess the impact of spin (ie, reporting to convince readers that the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment is greater than shown by the results) on the interpretation of results of abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the field of cancer. METHODS We performed a two-arm, parallel-group RCT. We selected a sample of published RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcome and with spin in the abstract conclusion. Two versions of these abstracts were used-the original with spin and a rewritten version without spin. Participants were clinician corresponding authors of articles reporting RCTs, investigators of trials, and reviewers of French national grants. The primary outcome was clinicians' interpretation of the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment (0 to 10 scale). Participants were blinded to study hypothesis. RESULTS Three hundred clinicians were randomly assigned using a Web-based system; 150 clinicians assessed an abstract with spin and 150 assessed an abstract without spin. For abstracts with spin, the experimental treatment was rated as being more beneficial (mean difference, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.07 to 1.35; P = .030), the trial was rated as being less rigorous (mean difference, -0.59; 95% CI, -1.13 to 0.05; P = .034), and clinicians were more interested in reading the full-text article (mean difference, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.08 to 1.47; P = .029). There was no statistically significant difference in the clinicians' rating of the importance of the study or the need to run another trial. CONCLUSION Spin in abstracts can have an impact on clinicians' interpretation of the trial results.

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

[2]  N. Leighl,et al.  Shifting patterns in the interpretation of phase III clinical trial outcomes in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: the bar is dropping. , 2014, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[3]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Observational studies often make clinical practice recommendations: an empirical evaluation of authors' attitudes. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  D. Cescon,et al.  Presentation of nonfinal results of randomized controlled trials at major oncology meetings. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[5]  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.

[6]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Assessment of claims of improved prediction beyond the Framingham risk score. , 2009, JAMA.

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

[8]  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.

[9]  I. Tannock,et al.  Quality of abstracts describing randomized trials in the proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings: guidelines for improved reporting. , 2004, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[10]  Ariel Linden Identifying spin in health management evaluations. , 2011, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[11]  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.

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

[13]  P. Armstrong,et al.  Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. , 2006, JAMA.

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

[15]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Do Physicians Understand Cancer Screening Statistics? A National Survey of Primary Care Physicians in the United States , 2012, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts , 2008, The Lancet.

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

[18]  E. Loveman,et al.  Time to full publication of studies of anti-cancer medicines for breast cancer and the potential for publication bias: a short systematic review. , 2008, Health technology assessment.

[19]  Lisa M. Schwartz,et al.  Communicating Data About the Benefits and Harms of Treatment , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Duplicate presentations on prostate cancer at American Urological Association and European Association of Urology annual meetings. , 2009, The Journal of urology.

[21]  I. Tannock,et al.  The fate of abstracts submitted to a cancer meeting: factors which influence presentation and subsequent publication. , 1992, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[22]  R M Pitkin,et al.  Accuracy of data in abstracts of published research articles. , 1999, JAMA.

[23]  N. Latronico,et al.  Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials published in Intensive Care Medicine from 2001 to 2010 , 2013, Intensive Care Medicine.

[24]  M H Ebell,et al.  Family physicians' use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? , 2001, The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice.

[25]  John R. Wilson Rhetorical strategies used in the reporting of implantable defibrillator primary prevention trials. , 2011, The American journal of cardiology.

[26]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[27]  Keiko Kurata,et al.  Remarkable Growth of Open Access in the Biomedical Field: Analysis of PubMed Articles from 2006 to 2010 , 2013, PloS one.

[28]  Steven Joffe,et al.  A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.