Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent, type, and severity of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in obstetrics and gynecology. Data Sources: The top five highest impact journals in obstetrics and gynecology were systematically searched for RCTs with non-significa...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ryan Chow (Author), Eileen Huang (Author), Sarah Fu (Author), Eileen Kim (Author), Sophie Li (Author), Jasmine Sodhi (Author), Togas Tulandi (Author), Kelly D. Cobey (Author), Vanessa Bacal (Author), Innie Chen (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Mary Ann Liebert, 2022-09-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_affe86cf80cf48fc9c1761c27ce9ccd9
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Ryan Chow  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Eileen Huang  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Sarah Fu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Eileen Kim  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Sophie Li  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Jasmine Sodhi  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Togas Tulandi  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Kelly D. Cobey  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Vanessa Bacal  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Innie Chen  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Spin in Randomized Controlled Trials in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Systematic Review 
260 |b Mary Ann Liebert,   |c 2022-09-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.1089/WHR.2021.0141 
500 |a 2688-4844 
520 |a Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent, type, and severity of spin in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in obstetrics and gynecology. Data Sources: The top five highest impact journals in obstetrics and gynecology were systematically searched for RCTs with non-significant primary outcomes published between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Methods: Study selection and data extraction assessment were conducted independently and in duplicate. The extent, type, and severity of spin was identified and reported with previously established methodology, and risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias 2 Tool independently and in duplicate. Fisher's exact tests were used to evaluate the association between study characteristics, risk of bias, and spin. Results: We identified 1475 publications, of which 59 met our inclusion criteria. Articles evaluated interventions in obstetrics (n?=?37, 63%) and gynecology (n?=?22, 37%). Spin was not detected in 28 (47%) of the articles: Three (5%) had one, 10 (17%) had two, and 18 (31%) had greater than two occurrences of spin. Compared with articles where no spin was detected, spin was associated with the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias domain pertaining to missing data (p?<?0.05). No association was observed with the journal, funding source, number of authors, types of interventions, and whether the study involved gynecology or obstetrics. Conclusions: Spin was detected in nearly half of 1:1 parallel two-arm RCTs in obstetrics and gynecology, highlighting the need for caution in the interpretation of RCT findings, particularly when the primary outcome is nonsignificant. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a interpretive bias 
690 |a obstetrics 
690 |a gynecology 
690 |a RCTs 
690 |a methodology 
690 |a reporting 
690 |a Gynecology and obstetrics 
690 |a RG1-991 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Women's Health Reports, Vol 3, Iss 1, Pp 795-802 (2022) 
787 0 |n https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/WHR.2021.0141 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2688-4844 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/affe86cf80cf48fc9c1761c27ce9ccd9  |z Connect to this object online.