Overinterpretation of Research Findings: Evaluation of “Spin” in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies in High–Impact Factor Journals

Abstract Background To compare the frequency of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals with the frequency a previously assessed series of reviews. Methods Medline was searched from January 2010 to January 2019. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical chemistry (Baltimore, Md.) Md.), 2020-07, Vol.66 (7), p.915-924
Main Authors: McGrath, Trevor A, Bowdridge, Joshua C, Prager, Ross, Frank, Robert A, Treanor, Lee, Dehmoobad Sharifabadi, Ana, Salameh, Jean-Paul, Leeflang, Mariska, Korevaar, Daniël A, Bossuyt, Patrick M, McInnes, Matthew D F
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Accuracy
Bias
Data Accuracy
Databases, Factual
Diagnosis
Diagnostic systems
Diagnostic Tests, Routine - statistics & numerical data
Impact factors
Journal Impact Factor
Literature reviews
Medical diagnosis
Meta-analysis
Periodicals as Topic
Reviews
Sensitivity analysis
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background To compare the frequency of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies in high-impact journals with the frequency a previously assessed series of reviews. Methods Medline was searched from January 2010 to January 2019. Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies were included if they reported a meta-analysis and were published in a journal with an impact factor >5. Two investigators independently scored each included systematic review for positivity of conclusions and for actual and potential overinterpretation practices. Results Of 137 included systematic reviews, actual overinterpretation was present in ≥1 form in the abstract in 63 (46%) and in the full-text report in 52 (38%); 108 (79%) contained a form of potential overinterpretation. Compared with the previously assessed series (reviews published 2015–2016), reviews in this series were less likely to contain ≥1 form of actual overinterpretation in the abstract and full-text report or ≥1 form of potential overinterpretation (P 
ISSN:0009-9147
1530-8561
DOI:10.1093/clinchem/hvaa093