A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In the scientific literature, "spin" refers to reporting practices that make the study findings appear more favorable than results justify. The practice of "spin" or misrepresentation and overinterpretation may lead to an imbalanced and unjustified optimism in the interpretation of study results about performance of putative biomarkers. We aimed to classify spin (i.e., misrepresentation and overinterpretation of study findings) in recent clinical studies evaluating the performance of biomarkers in ovarian cancer. METHODS: We searched PubMed systematically for all evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers published in 2015. Studies eligible for inclusion reported the clinical performance of prognostic, predictive, or diagnostic biomarkers. RESULTS: Our search identified 1,026 studies; 326 studies met all eligibility criteria, of which we evaluated the first 200 studies. Of these, 140 (70%) contained one or more form of spin in the title, abstract, or main-text conclusion, exaggerating the performance of the biomarker. The most frequent forms of spin identified were (1) other purposes of biomarker claimed not investigated (65; 32.5%); (2) mismatch between intended aim and conclusion (57; 28.5%); and (3) incorrect presentation of results (40; 20%). CONCLUSION: Our study provides evidence of misrepresentation and overinterpretation of finding in recent clinical evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers.

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

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