Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are vulnerable to spin (i.e., misrepresentation of study findings). We sought to describe the incidence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on PRP for knee osteoarthritis.</p> Methods <p>A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses on PRP injections for knee osteoarthritis. Data collected from abstracts included 21 types of spin as originally reported by Yavchitz et al., year and journal of publication, level of evidence, and Scopus CiteScore™. Associations between the most common and severe spin types and abstract characteristics were assessed using Spearman analyses.</p> Results <p>In all 79 abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessed, at least one form of spin was identified. The average spin score per abstract was 5.46 ± 2.30 (range 1–12). The most common type of spin was “conclusion claiming the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies” (67/79, 84.8%). There was a correlation between the spin type “authors hide or do not present any conflict of interest” and an older publication year (rho: − 0.252, <i>P </i>value: 0.025).</p> Discussion <p>Spin favoring PRP is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the use of PRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. This inaccurate presentation of information identifies a need for (1) high-quality RCTs and (2) reduction of spin in future literature to accurately distribute information regarding PRP for this indication.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Spin and reporting bias in the use of platelet-rich plasma for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月12日

查看全文
  • Mary K. Richardson,
  • Natalie M. Kistler,
  • Cory K. Mayfield,
  • Kevin C. Liu,
  • Jay R. Lieberman,
  • Nathanael D. Heckmann

摘要

Introduction

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are vulnerable to spin (i.e., misrepresentation of study findings). We sought to describe the incidence of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on PRP for knee osteoarthritis.

Methods

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses search was conducted in Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses on PRP injections for knee osteoarthritis. Data collected from abstracts included 21 types of spin as originally reported by Yavchitz et al., year and journal of publication, level of evidence, and Scopus CiteScore™. Associations between the most common and severe spin types and abstract characteristics were assessed using Spearman analyses.

Results

In all 79 abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses assessed, at least one form of spin was identified. The average spin score per abstract was 5.46 ± 2.30 (range 1–12). The most common type of spin was “conclusion claiming the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies” (67/79, 84.8%). There was a correlation between the spin type “authors hide or do not present any conflict of interest” and an older publication year (rho: − 0.252, P value: 0.025).

Discussion

Spin favoring PRP is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the use of PRP for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis. This inaccurate presentation of information identifies a need for (1) high-quality RCTs and (2) reduction of spin in future literature to accurately distribute information regarding PRP for this indication.