Eight in Every 10 Abstracts of Low Back Pain Systematic Reviews Presented Spin and Inconsistencies With the Full Text: An Analysis of 66 Systematic Reviews

Abstract

Objective To evaluate whether abstracts of low back pain reviews contained spin, whether these abstracts consistently represented the full text, and whether the spin in these abstracts was associated with the type of conclusion. Design Overview study. Literature Search We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on January 10, 2018. Study Selection Criteria Systematic reviews of physical therapy interventions for low back pain published between 2015 and 2017. Data Synthesis Spin was assessed using a 7-item checklist. We evaluated consistency by comparing information in the abstract with that in the full text using the 7-item checklist and kappa coefficient analysis. We used logistic regression analysis to evaluate the association between spin in the abstract and type of conclusion. We evaluated methodological quality using the revised version of the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. Results We included 66 eligible systematic reviews, subdivided into Cochrane (n = 9) and non-Cochrane (n = 57) reviews. There was some form of spin in 80% of abstracts. Abstracts of non-Cochrane reviews were not consistent with the full text (fair to moderate agreement). Cochrane review abstracts had substantial to almost perfect agreement with the full text. Spin was not associated with type of conclusion in all systematic reviews (P<.05). The methodological quality ranged from “high” to “critically low.” Conclusion The abstracts of systematic reviews evaluating physical therapy interventions for low back pain need improvement. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):17–23. Epub 23 Aug 2019. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.8962