Content

• Selective reporting
• Misrepresentation of data
 Incomplete reporting

•Hundreds of published reviews show that key elements of methods and

findings are commonly missing from journal reports
•We often cannot tell exactly how the research was done
•These problems are generic
– not specific to randomised trials
– not specific to studies of medicines
– not specific to research by pharmaceutical companies
 Reporting deficiencies –a big problem for systematic reviews
Key steps:
–Formulation of a clear question
–Eligibility criteria for studies
–Search for potentially relevant studies
–Selection of studies into the review
–Extraction of data
–Assessment of methodological quality of included studies (risk of
bias)
–Synthesis of findings (possibly using meta-analysis)
–Presentation of data and results
–Interpretation and drawing conclusions
 Consequences
•Low reliability of findings
•Impossible to replicate methods
•Impossible to reproduce findings
•Difficulties in implementing findings in practice (or just understanding
the papers!)
 Common Errors to Avoid

• Title
–Misrepresents / inadequately describes the article or study design
–Includes unclear abbreviation, jargon
• Abstract
–Information in abstracts does not correspond with the information in the
full text (methods, results, conclusions, etc.)
• Introduction
–Does not describe the purpose and objective of the study
–Contains material irrelevant to the study or belonging in other sections
of the manuscript
 Common Errors to Avoid

• Methods
–Reports on methods not used in the study
–Described methods do not relate to reported results
–Missing or inadequate description (preventing replication of the study):
For example description of study participants, interventions,
randomisation in trials, etc.
–Poor reporting of statistical methods
 Common Errors to Avoid

• Results
–Incomplete reporting (data cannot be included in meta-analysis)
–Inadequate reporting of harms
–Selective reporting of outcomes and / or analyses(e.g. subgroups,
alternative analyses)
–Presenting results from another study
–Text repeats what is show in tables and figures
 Common Errors to Avoid

• Discussion
–Does not explain key results
–Biased, fails to put results in the context of findings from other studies
–Does not describe limitations of the study
–Overstates conclusions from results (inflates the importance of the
study)
–Too expansive, lacks logic, includes irrelevant information
 Looking closely at research

• Research on research (meta-research)

–Investigating the available research (mostly by looking at research
publications, protocols, other information available about research )
• Quite depressing findings
Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature

• Publication in peer-reviewed journals is an essential step in the

scientific process.
• However, publication is not simply the reporting of facts arising from
a straightforward analysis thereof.
• Authors have broad latitude when writing their reports and may be
tempted to consciously or unconsciously “spin” their study findings.
• Spin has been defined as a specific intentional or unintentional
reporting that fails to faithfully reflect the nature and range of findings
and that could affect the impression the results produce in readers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spin_(propaganda)&oldid=793952705
 Spin

Definition of the Concept of Spin

Spin has become a standard concept in public relations and politics in
recent decades. It is “a form of propaganda, achieved by providing a
biased interpretation of an event or campaigning to persuade public
opinion in favor of or against some organization or public figure”

Spin can also be defined as a specific reporting that fails to faithfully

reflect the nature and range of findings and that could affect the
impression that the results produce in readers, a way to distort science
reporting without actually lying [Bailar JC (2006) How to distort the
scientific record without actually lying: Truth, and arts of science. Eur J
Oncol 11:217–224].
 Misinterpretation

Misinterpretation refers to an interpretation of the results that is not

consistent with the actual results of the study.
In the Discussion section of a paper, authors may take a strong position
that relies more on their opinion than on the study results. Interpretation
of results is misleading when researchers focus on a within-group
comparison; when they ignore
regression to the mean and confounding; when they inappropriately posit
causality; when they draw an inappropriate inference from a composite
outcome; or report P values as a measure of an effect whereas, in reality,
it is only a measure of how likely it is that a result occurs by chance.