‘Spin’ in reports of clinical research

Kamal Ram Mahtani

21 citations0/0 files storedBMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare

Abstract

Clinical research is frequently hampered by flaws in its design or conduct. Such biases have been well documented. However, reports of clinical research may also be biased and present results in a more favourable way than they deserve or downplay harms. Such 'spin' in reporting has been demonstrated empirically. This short commentary summarises some of the problems with spin in reports of clinical research as well as signposts to some of the empirical evidence demonstrating its effect.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 21 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence 2010Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes 2014Impact of Spin in the Abstracts of Articles Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Cancer: The SPIIN Randomized Controlled Trial 2012Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage: A Cohort Study 2016A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity 2015Systematic Differences between Cochrane and Non-Cochrane Meta-Analyses on the Same Topic: A Matched Pair Analysis 2011The international EQUATOR network: enhancing the quality and transparency of health care research 2009Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study

Cited by

2022Assessing “Spin” in Urology Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes 2022“Spin” in Plastic Surgery Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Nonsignificant Primary Outcomes: A Systematic Review 2020Flexibilization of Science, Cognitive Biases, and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.