Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Previously submitted to: JMIRx Med (no longer under consideration since Nov 06, 2021)

Date Submitted: May 13, 2021

Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on analgesic opioids for non-cancer chronic pain management: A cross sectional analysis

  • Analise Claassen; 
  • Jonathan Staheli; 
  • Ryan Ottwell; 
  • Wade Arthur; 
  • Will Roberts; 
  • Micah Hartwell; 
  • Drew N. Wright; 
  • Livia Puljak; 
  • Lan Zhu; 
  • Jam Khojasteh; 
  • Matt Vassar

ABSTRACT

Background:

Patients with chronic, non-cancer pain are frequently prescribed opioids, often due to favourable results from systematic reviews. However, even studies with high-quality evidence can suffer from spin, which includes misleading reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of study results.

Objective:

This study evaluated spin in systematic review abstracts concerning analgesic opioids for non-cancer, chronic pain management and the relationship between its presence and study characteristics.

Methods:

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews pertaining to analgesic opioids for non-cancer, chronic pain management. Screening and data extraction were done in a masked, duplicate fashion. Abstracts were evaluated for the presence of the nine most-severe types of spin.

Results:

Our search returned 1,109 articles; of which, 53 systematic reviews met our eligibility criteria. We found at least one type of spin in 30.2% of the included systematic review abstracts. Spin type 5 was the most common type of spin in our sample and occurred in 17% of abstracts. Spin types 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 were not detected. Abstracts of systematic reviews published in journals that recommend PRISMA adherence were 9.33 times more likely to contain spin compared to those published in journals without specific PRISMA guidelines. The remaining study characteristics were not significantly associated with spin.

Conclusions:

Our results showed that nearly one-third of the 53 included systematic reviews contained at least one type of spin in their abstract. Based on our results, systematic reviews about managing chronic, non-cancer pain with opioids require improvements in their abstract reporting.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Claassen A, Staheli J, Ottwell R, Arthur W, Roberts W, Hartwell M, Wright DN, Puljak L, Zhu L, Khojasteh J, Vassar M

Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews focused on analgesic opioids for non-cancer chronic pain management: A cross sectional analysis

JMIR Preprints. 13/05/2021:30407

DOI: 10.2196/preprints.30407

URL: https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/30407

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.