Introduction 

The objective of this study was to assess for spin – a form of reporting that overemphasizes benefits or downplay harms – within abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the clinical practice of emergency medicine (EM).

Methods 

PubMed was searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published since 2015 in either EM or general medical journals that examined an aspect of emergency medical care. In a duplicate, masked fashion, article titles and abstracts were screened to determine eligibility based on predetermined inclusion criteria. The included full-text studies were read and evaluated for spin using a previously determined search strategy. Two authors further evaluated study quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool.

Results 

Our PubMed search identified 478 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, of which a random sample of 200 was selected for data extraction. Spin within the abstract of the manuscript was identified in 34.5% (69/200) of the included reviews. We identified seven of the nine spin types, with two types being most common: (1) conclusion claiming a benefit despite high risk of bias among studies reviewed (19.5% of abstracts), and (2) conclusion claiming a benefit despite reporting bias (14.5%). No significant associations were found between the presence of spin and any of the evaluated study characteristics, the AMSTAR-2 appraisal, or the journal of publication.

Conclusion 

Spin is commonly present in abstracts of EM systematic reviews. The reporting quality for EM systematic reviews requires improvement. Measures should be taken to improve the overall review process and way information is conveyed through abstracts.

中文翻译：

---

急诊医学系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中的自旋评估

介绍 

本研究的目的是评估与急诊医学 (EM) 临床实践相关的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中的自旋——一种过分强调益处或淡化危害的报告形式。

方法 

PubMed 搜索了自 2015 年以来在 EM 或普通医学期刊上发表的系统评价和荟萃分析，这些期刊检查了紧急医疗护理的一个方面。以重复的、隐蔽的方式，筛选文章标题和摘要，以确定基于预定纳入标准的资格。使用先前确定的搜索策略阅读并评估包含的全文研究。两位作者使用 AMSTAR-2 工具进一步评估了研究质量。

结果 

我们的 PubMed 搜索确定了 478篇系统评价和荟萃分析，其中随机选择了 200 份样本进行数据提取。在 34.5% (69/200) 的纳入评论中确定了手稿摘要中的旋转。我们确定了九种自旋类型中的七种，其中两种最常见：（1）尽管在所审查的研究中存在高偏倚风险（19.5% 的摘要），但声称有益处的结论，以及（2）尽管存在报告偏倚但声称有益处的结论（ 14.5%）。没有发现自旋的存在与任何评估的研究特征、AMSTAR-2 评估或出版期刊之间存在显着关联。

结论 

自旋通常出现在 EM系统评价的摘要中。新兴市场系统评价的报告质量需要改进。应采取措施改进整体审查过程和通过摘要传达信息的方式。