Abstracts for reports of randomized trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

Dongguang Wang,Lingmin Chen,Lian Wang,Fang Hua,Juan Li,Yuxi Li,Yonggang Zhang,Hong Fan,Weimin Li,Mike Clarke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.027

IF: 7.407

2021-11-01

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:<h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Objectives</h3><p>: To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically non-significant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Study Design and Setting</h3><p>: PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors.</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Results</h3><p>: Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044 to 0.658, P=0.026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI -0.760 to -0.099, P=0.013).</p><h3 class="u-h4 u-margin-m-top u-margin-xs-bottom">Conclusions</h3><p>: The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.</p>

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services