The Use of “Spin” in Laparoscopic Lower GI Surgical Trials with Nonsignificant Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spin has been defined as "specific reporting that could distort the interpretation of results and mislead readers." OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify how frequently, and to what extent, "spin" occurs in laparoscopic lower GI surgical trials with nonsignificant results. DATA SOURCES: Publications were referenced in MEDLINE and EMBASE (1992-2012). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials comparing laparoscopic with open surgical technique in lower GI surgery were sought. Trials were included if a nonsignificant (p > 0.05) result of the primary outcome(s) occurred. INTERVENTION: The laparoscopic versus open technique in lower GI surgery was studied. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Trials were assessed for frequency, strategy, and extent of "spin," as previously defined. RESULTS: Fifty-eight trials met the inclusion criteria. Sixty-six percent of these trials had evidence of "spin." In general, authors used significant results only (one of multiple primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, or subgroup analyses) (43%) or interpreted nonsignificance as equivalence (43%). Trials with spin were more likely to recommend the laparoscopic approach over the open technique (p < 0.001), were less likely to call for further trials (p = 0.003), and were less likely to acknowledge the nonsignificant differences (p < 0.001). Inadequate randomization was associated with decreased odds of spin (p = 0.03), as was an intent-to-treat analysis (p < 0.0001), whereas inadequate allocation concealment (p = 0.06) was weakly associated with a decrease in spin. No other a priori candidate risk factors were associated with the presence of spin. LIMITATIONS: Funding source was rarely described, so the association between industry funding and spin could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: The distortion of nonsignificant results in laparoscopic trials was highly prevalent in this review. Readers of trials with nonsignificant results should be cautious of the authors' interpretations. Editors, reviewers, and publishers should ensure that author's conclusions correspond to the study's results and design.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.568 | 0.788 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".