|
[article] | Titre : |
Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study |
| Type de document : |
Article |
| Auteurs : |
Dafne P. Nascimento ; Leonardo O.P. Costa ; Gabrielle Z. Gonzalez |
| Année de publication : |
2019 |
| Article en page(s) : |
p. 1976-1985 |
| Langues : |
Anglais (eng) |
| Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci
Essais contrôlés randomisés comme sujet ; Exactitude des données ; Indexation et rédaction du résumé comme sujet ; Lombalgie ; Réadaptation
|
| Résumé : |
Objective
To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regard to completeness of reporting, spin (ie, interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in the data with the full text.
Data Sources
The search was performed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.
Study Selection
This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Data Extraction
Completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a spin checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text was assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (kappa statistics). Methodologic quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.
Data Synthesis
The mean number of fully reported items ± SD for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1±2.4 out of 15 points. The mean number of items ± SD with spin was 4.9±2.6 out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean kappa ± SD, 0.20±0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the spin checklist (mean kappa ± SD, 0.47±0.09).
Conclusions
The abstracts were incomplete, with evidence of spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers, and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies. |
| Disponible en ligne : |
Oui |
| En ligne : |
https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a [...] |
in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation > Vol. 100, n° 10 (2019) . - p. 1976-1985
[article] Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study [Article] / Dafne P. Nascimento ; Leonardo O.P. Costa ; Gabrielle Z. Gonzalez . - 2019 . - p. 1976-1985. Langues : Anglais ( eng) in Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation > Vol. 100, n° 10 (2019) . - p. 1976-1985 | Descripteurs : |
HE Vinci
Essais contrôlés randomisés comme sujet ; Exactitude des données ; Indexation et rédaction du résumé comme sujet ; Lombalgie ; Réadaptation
|
| Résumé : |
Objective
To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regard to completeness of reporting, spin (ie, interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in the data with the full text.
Data Sources
The search was performed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.
Study Selection
This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Data Extraction
Completeness of reporting was assessed using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a spin checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text was assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (kappa statistics). Methodologic quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.
Data Synthesis
The mean number of fully reported items ± SD for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1±2.4 out of 15 points. The mean number of items ± SD with spin was 4.9±2.6 out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean kappa ± SD, 0.20±0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the spin checklist (mean kappa ± SD, 0.47±0.09).
Conclusions
The abstracts were incomplete, with evidence of spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers, and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies. |
| Disponible en ligne : |
Oui |
| En ligne : |
https://login.ezproxy.vinci.be/login?url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a [...] |
|
Ajouter le résultat dans votre panier
Visionner les documents numériques
Faire une suggestion Affiner la recherche15e Congrès de la SFETD Nantes, 12-14 novembre 2015 in Douleurs, Vol. 17, n° 2HS (Juin 2016)
