Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation

• Published in: BMJ open 2021-07, Vol.11 (7), p.e051821-e051821
• Main Authors: Bero, Lisa, Lawrence, Rosa, Leslie, Louis, Chiu, Kellia, McDonald, Sally, Page, Matthew J, Grundy, Quinn, Parker, Lisa, Boughton, Stephanie, Kirkham, Jamie J, Featherstone, Robin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Coronaviruses; COVID-19; Cross-sectional studies; Disease transmission; Epidemiology; ethics (see Medical Ethics); Health services; Medical ethics; Medical Publishing and Peer Review; Medical research; Peer review; Preprints; Prevention; public health; Qualitative research; Servers
• ISSN: 2044-6055; 2044-6055
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051821

ObjectiveTo compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingInternational medical literature.ParticipantsPreprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.Main outcome measuresStudy characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).ResultsOf 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.ConclusionsThe COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.