Total Pageviews

Saturday, August 10, 2019

Spin’ found in over half of clinical trial study abstracts

Real climate science
has lots of studies.

"Climate change" mainly
has wrong, wild guesses
of the future climate,
that are fake "studies".

But all studies,
real and fake, 
have something 
in common:
An abstract !




There have been studies
of studies before.

The results 
are consistent,
finding that abstracts 
are too often 
biased summaries 
of the studies.

‘Spin’–exaggerating the 
clinical significance 
of a particular treatment, 
without the statistics 
to back it up, is apparent 
in more than half 
of clinical trial abstracts 
published in top psychology 
and psychiatry journals, 
finds a review of relevant 
research in BMJ Evidence 
Based Medicine.

Evidence to date suggests
abstract information alone 
is capable of changing doctors’ 
minds, warn the study authors.




Random controlled trials 
serve as the gold standard 
of evidence in medicine.

Researchers should report 
their findings honestly, 
but they are free to interpret 
results as they wish.

An abstract should summarize 
the study, but researchers may be
selective with the information
they choose to highlight, spinning
the findings, which is a form of lying.

The study authors 
used the research 
database PubMed, to find
randomized controlled trials 
of psychiatric and behavioral 
treatments, published 
from 2012 to 2017, 
in six top psychology and 
psychiatry journals.

They reviewed only trials (116) 
where primary results had not been 
statistically significant.

They found evidence of spin 
in the abstracts of more than half 
( 56% ) of the published trials. 

This included titles (2%), 
results sections (21%), 
and conclusion sections (49%).

In 17 trials (15%), 
spin was identified 
in both the results and 
conclusion sections 
of the abstract.

Industry funding was 
not associated with 
a greater likelihood 
of spinning the findings: 
  Only 10 of the 65 clinical trials 
in which spin was evident, 
had some level of industry funding.

The authors tried to use 
objective criteria to define spin, 
but their actual assessments 
would have been subjective.

The authors say:
“Researchers have an ethical 
obligation to honestly and clearly 
report the results of their research." 

"Adding spin to the 
abstract of an article 
may mislead physicians 
who are attempting 
to draw conclusions 
about a treatment for patients. 

"Most physicians read 
only the article abstract 
the majority of the time.”

“Those who write clinical trial 
manuscripts know that they have a
limited amount of time and space 
in which to capture the attention 
of the reader."

"Positive results are more likely 
to be published, and many 
manuscript authors have turned to 
questionable reporting practices 

in order to beautify their results.”