The SSSPIN study—spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis
BMJ 2019; 367 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6202 (Published 18 December 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;367:l6202
- 1The University of Sydney, Charles Perkins Centre, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
- 2University of Toronto, Faculty of Nursing, Toronto, ON, Canada
- Correspondence to: L Bero lisa.bero{at}sydney.edu.au
- Accepted 27 August 2019
Abstract
Objectives To identify and calculate the prevalence of spin in studies of spin.
Design Meta-research analysis (research on research).
Setting 35 studies of spin in the scientific literature.
Main outcome measures Spin, categorised as: reporting practices that distort the presentation and interpretation of results, creating misleading conclusions; discordance between results and their interpretation, with presentation of favourable conclusions that are not supported by the data or results; attribution of causality when study design does not support it; and over-interpretation or inappropriate extrapolation of results.
Results Five (14%) of 35 spin studies contained spin categorised as reporting practices that distort the presentation and interpretation of results (n=2) or categorised as over-interpretation or inappropriate extrapolation of results (n=3).
Conclusion Spin occurs in research on spin. Although researchers on this topic should be sensitive to spinning their findings, our study does not undermine the need for rigorous interventions to reduce spin across various research fields.
Conclusion with spin Our hypothesis that spin will be less prevalent in spin studies than in studies on other topics has been proven. Spin scholars are less likely to spin their conclusions than other researchers, and they should receive substantial resources to launch and test interventions to reduce spin and research waste in reporting.
Footnotes
Contributors: LB devised the study, supervised and participated in analysis, and wrote the first draft of the manuscript; KC participated in data collection and analysis and critically revised manuscript drafts; and QG participated in analysis and commented on the draft. LB is the guarantor of the study. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
Funding: There was no funding for this work.
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Ethical approval: This study was exempt from ethical review according to the guidelines of the University of Sydney’s human research ethics committee.
Data sharing: The full data are publicly available at The Sydney eScholarship Repository at http://hdl.handle.net/2123/16826 (doi:10.4227/11/593f2060bb57d).
The lead author affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned have been explained.
This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.