| Popis: |
BACKGROUND Patients with chronic, non-cancer pain are frequently prescribed opioids, often due to favourable results from systematic reviews. However, even studies with high-quality evidence can suffer from spin, which includes misleading reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of study results. OBJECTIVE This study evaluated spin in systematic review abstracts concerning analgesic opioids for non-cancer, chronic pain management and the relationship between its presence and study characteristics. METHODS We searched MEDLINE and Embase for systematic reviews pertaining to analgesic opioids for non-cancer, chronic pain management. Screening and data extraction were done in a masked, duplicate fashion. Abstracts were evaluated for the presence of the nine most-severe types of spin. RESULTS Our search returned 1,109 articles; of which, 53 systematic reviews met our eligibility criteria. We found at least one type of spin in 30.2% of the included systematic review abstracts. Spin type 5 was the most common type of spin in our sample and occurred in 17% of abstracts. Spin types 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 were not detected. Abstracts of systematic reviews published in journals that recommend PRISMA adherence were 9.33 times more likely to contain spin compared to those published in journals without specific PRISMA guidelines. The remaining study characteristics were not significantly associated with spin. CONCLUSIONS Our results showed that nearly one-third of the 53 included systematic reviews contained at least one type of spin in their abstract. Based on our results, systematic reviews about managing chronic, non-cancer pain with opioids require improvements in their abstract reporting. |
