Abstract:Background Nurse-led models of care had been reported as effective intervention approaches for improving health management and reducing hospitalizations of target patients in a number of studies. However, the reporting quality studies in the field varied and there was a lack of literature evaluation. Objective The objective of the study was to assess the reporting quality and spin of abstracts of published randomized controlled trials which had statistically not significant primary outcomes. Moreover, potential factors associated with the presence of spin was also assessed. Methods Studies on nurse-led care were retrieved from PubMed from January 1st, 2017, to December 31st, 2021. Only randomized controlled trials with statistically not significant primary outcomes were included. Study screening and data extraction were carried out by two reviewers independently. The reporting quality of each abstract was evaluated by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement, and spin strategies were analyzed using a pre-designed assessment form. Potential predictors for the presence of spin were analyzed by multivariate logistic regressions. Results The overall reporting quality of the included 75 randomized controlled trial abstracts was not satisfying, with a median score of 16-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement at 6 (IQR 5, 8). Forty abstracts used at least one spin strategy in abstracts. Among them, 18 (45.0%) used spin strategies in the result section and 39 (97.5%) had spin in the conclusion section. The most common spin strategy identified in abstracts was focusing on statistically significant secondary outcomes (12/40, 30.0%) in the result section and claiming benefit with no consideration of statistically not significant results for the primary outcomes (32/40, 80.0%) in the conclusion section. Based on the definition, 29 (72.5%) abstracts were assessed to have high level of spin in the conclusions of abstracts. By multivariate logistic regression analyses, it was found that only geographic origin (reference: studies from Asian countries, OR = 0.118, 95%CI 0.027 to 0.511, P = 0.004) and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement score (reference: lower score, OR = 0.625, 95%CI 0.470 to 0.829, P = 0.001) were significantly associated with the presence of spin in abstracts. Conclusion Among the randomized controlled trials with statistically not significant primary outcomes in the field of nurse-led care, the reporting quality of abstracts needs to be improved. Trials from Asian countries and with lower Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement scores are more likely to present spin in abstracts. Findings reported in the result and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis (Preprint)

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis

Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals

Spin in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Oral Implantology: A Cross‐sectional Analysis

Spin in the Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in Operative Dentistry: A Cross-sectional Analysis

Spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials of nurse-led care: A cross-sectional study

'Spin' in urology non‐randomised studies comparing therapeutic interventions: a temporal analysis

Abstracts of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Field of Dentofacial Trauma: Reporting Quality and Spin.

The reporting quality and spin of randomized controlled trials of endometriosis pain: Methodological study based on CONSORT extension on abstracts

Abstracts of published randomized controlled trials in Endodontics: reporting quality and spin

Abstracts of randomized controlled trials in splint therapy for temporomandibular disorders: Reporting quality and spin

Abstracts of published randomised controlled trials in Endodontics: Reporting quality and spin.

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

Three randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of "spin" in health news stories reporting studies of pharmacologic treatments on patients'/caregivers' interpretation of treatment benefit

SPIN-PM: A consensus framework to evaluate the presence of spin in studies on prediction models

Evaluation of Spin Bias in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses of Rotator Cuff Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma

Characteristics of Vaccine Safety Observational Studies and Authors' Attitudes: A Systematic Review

Fraudulent studies are undermining the reliability of systematic reviews – a study of the prevalence of problematic images in preclinical studies of depression

Abstracts Often Do Not Accurately Reflect Trial Results, Study Shows

Narrative bias (“spin”) is common in randomised trials and systematic reviews of cannabinoids for pain

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study