2023 ISAKOS Biennial Congress ePoster
The High Prevalence of Spin Reporting Bias in Meniscal Allograft Transplant Abstracts: A Qualitative Assessment Of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Matthew T Gulbrandsen, MD, Loma Linda, California UNITED STATES
Mustafa Hashimi, BS, Iowa City UNITED STATES
Taha Taka, BS, Riverside, California UNITED STATES
Trevor Gulbrandsen, MD, Iowa City, IA UNITED STATES
Anthony Essilfie, MD, New York, NY UNITED STATES
Anikar Chhabra, MD, MS, Phoenix, AZ UNITED STATES
Seth L. Sherman, MD, Redwood City, California UNITED STATES
Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California, UNITED STATES
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary
There is a high prevalence of spin bias in meta-analysis and systematic review abstracts pertaining to meniscal allograft transplantation.
ePosters will be available shortly before Congress
Abstract
Purpose
Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) serves as an alternative to meniscectomy or arthroscopic meniscus repairs in the treatment of meniscal tears. There continues to be a debate of long and short-term outcomes of MAT compared to conservative modalities. Spin is a recent concept that is defined as a reporting bias in abstracts that misrepresents research. This bias can subsequently affect clinical decision making and patient care. The purpose of this study is to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analysis and systematic review abstracts regarding the efficacy of MAT.
Methods
A review of meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding clinical outcomes of MAT was performed utilizing Electronic libraries (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar). The key words used for searches included (Meniscal or Meniscus) and (allograft) and (transplantation). Data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. Each included study was evaluated for the nine most severe types of spin and other study characteristics. Additionally, the association between spin and methodological quality of a systematic review using the revised A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) appraisal tool was explored.
Results
The electronic database search resulted in 1088 articles. A total of 27 articles met inclusion criteria. After qualitative analysis was performed, it was found that 74% (20/27) of the included articles contained at least one spin bias in the abstract. Of the nine most severe types of spin found in abstracts, type 5 spin (claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in primary studies) was found to be the most prevalent (20/27, 74%). The next most common type of spin was type 3: selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental (5/27, 19%). According to AMSTAR-2, 15% (4/27) of the studies were appraised as “low” quality and 85% (23/27) as “critically low” quality.
Conclusion
This study demonstrated the presence of spin in a significant portion (74%) of meta-analysis and systematic review abstracts pertaining to meniscal allograft transplantation. Orthopedic surgeons should learn to recognize spin as they review articles when deciding to utilize MAT for patients undergoing meniscectomy. Additionally, strict criteria should be considered to reduce the prevalence of spin in orthopedic literature.