Prevalence of spin reporting bias in hip labrum reconstruction:  a qualitative assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Matthew T. Gulbrandsen; Damien Cannon; Meng-Yung M. Ong; David Ruckle; Dheeraj Yalamanchili; Anthony Essilfie; Wesley Phipatanakul; Joseph Nairne Liu

doi:10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20243132

Authors

Matthew T. Gulbrandsen Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
Damien Cannon Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
Meng-Yung M. Ong Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
David Ruckle Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
Dheeraj Yalamanchili Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
Anthony Essilfie Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
Wesley Phipatanakul Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA
Joseph Nairne Liu Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, CA USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/issn.2455-4510.IntJResOrthop20243132

Keywords:

Orthopaedics, Spin bias, Hip labrum reconstruction

Abstract

Hip labral reconstruction is an evolving technique to treat labral pathology. Spin is a recent concept that is defined as a reporting bias that misrepresents research. The purpose of this study is to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analysis and systematic review abstracts regarding acetabular labral reconstruction. Electronic libraries were queried for meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding hip labrum reconstruction. The nine most severe types of spin found in abstracts were used as an evaluation tool. Two reviewers each performed a blinded assessment of each article for spin. A third reviewer was used to address any discrepancies between the original reviewers. Other variables evaluated include number of citations, journal impact factor, reported conflicts of interest (COI), adherence to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and methodologic quality according to a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR-2). The electronic database search resulted in 1,148 articles, of which 10 met inclusion criteria. Of these 10 articles, 70% (7/10) were found to have at least one form of spin present, 20% (2/10) contained 3 different types of spin, 30% (3/10) contained 2 different types of spin, and 20% (2/10) contained 1 type of spin. The most common type of spin found was type 5, “conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite high risk of bias in the primary studies,” which was found in 60% (6/10) of the articles. When assessing AMSTAR-2 score, 90% (9/10) of the articles were found to be ‘low quality’ or ‘critically low quality.’ Spin was present in 70% of the abstracts of meta-analyses and systematic reviews pertaining to hip labrum reconstruction. Recognition of spin is crucial for orthopaedic surgeons. Improved guidelines should be considered to reduce the prevalence of spin in orthopaedic literature.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Alzaharani A, Bali K, Gudena R, Pamela R, Dragana P, John RM, et al. The innervation of the human acetabular labrum and hip joint: an anatomic study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:41.

Nepple JJ, Philippon MJ, Campbell KJ, Grant JD, Kyle SJ, Robert FL, et al. The hip fluid seal--Part II: The effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip stability to distraction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;22(4):730-6.

Philippon MJ, Nepple JJ, Campbell KJ, Grant JD, Kyle SJ, Robert FL, et al. The hip fluid seal--Part I: the effect of an acetabular labral tear, repair, resection, and reconstruction on hip fluid pressurization. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;22(4):722-9.

Al Mana L, Coughlin RP, Desai V, Simunovic N, Duong A, Ayeni OR. The Hip Labrum Reconstruction: Indications and Outcomes-an Updated Systematic Review. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2019;12(2):156-65.

Bessa FS, Williams BT, Polce EM, Mansueto N, Flávio LG, Gustavo L, et al. Indications and Outcomes for Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction with Autografts: A Systematic Review. Front Surg. 2020;7:61.

Philippon MJ, Briggs KK, Hay CJ, Kuppersmith DA, Dewing CB, Huang MJ. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band autograft: technique and early outcomes. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc N Am Int Arthrosc Assoc. 2010;26(6):750-6

Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? PLOS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.

Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-80.

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Maarten B, Neil A, Candyce H, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7(1):10.

Zhang H, Han J, Zhu YB, Wan-Yee L, Myron ES, Guo-Qiang X, et al. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:4-16.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Micere T, Candyce H, Julian M, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomized studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, David M, Asbjørn H, Toby L, et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56-65.

Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4120-6.

Ayeni OR, Alradwan H, de Sa D, Philippon MJ. The hip labrum reconstruction: indications and outcomes--a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Off J ESSKA. 2014;22(4):737-43.

Forster-Horvath C, von Rotz N, Giordano BD, Domb BG. Acetabular Labral Debridement/Segmental Resection Versus Reconstruction in the Comprehensive Treatment of Symptomatic Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc N Am Int Arthrosc Assoc. 2016;32(11):2401-15.

Maldonado DR, Kyin C, Chen SL, Philip JR, Jacob S, Mitchell BM, et al. In search of labral restoration function with hip arthroscopy: outcomes of hip labral reconstruction versus labral repair: a systematic review. Hip Int J Clin Exp Res Hip Pathol Ther. 2021;31(6):704-13.

Maldonado DR, Kyin C, Shapira J, Rosinsky PJ, Walker-Santiago R, Domb BG. Circumferential and Segmental Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Orthopedics. 2021;44(6):361-6.

Orner CA, Patel UJ, Jones CMC, Giordano BD. Segmental and Circumferential Acetabular Labral Reconstruction Have Comparable Outcomes in the Treatment of Irreparable or Unsalvageable Labral Pathology: A Systematic Review. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc N Am Int Arthrosc Assoc. 2022;38(4):1341-50.

Rahl MD, LaPorte C, Steinl GK, O’Connor M, Lynch TS, Menge TJ. Outcomes After Arthroscopic Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2020;48(7):1748-55.

Safran N, Rath E, Haviv B, Atzmon R, Amar E. The Efficacy of Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021;9(2):2325967120977088.

Trivedi NN, Sivasundaram L, Su CA, Derrick K, Shane JN, Richard CM, et al. Indications and Outcomes of Arthroscopic Labral Reconstruction of the Hip: A Systematic Review. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc N Am Int Arthrosc Assoc. 2019;35(7):2175-86.

Checketts JX, Riddle J, Zaaza Z, Boose MA, Whitener JH, Vassar MB. An Evaluation of Spin in Lower Extremity Joint Trials. J Arthroplasty. 2019;34(5):1008-12.

Arthur W, Zaaza Z, Checketts JX, Austin LJ, Kevin M, Clint B, et al. Analyzing Spin in Abstracts of Orthopaedic Randomized Controlled Trials with Statistically Insignificant Primary Endpoints. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg Off Publ Arthrosc Assoc N Am Int Arthrosc Assoc. 2020;1443-50:e1.

Jones C, Rulon Z, Arthur W, Ryan O, Jake C, Byron D, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to the treatment of proximal humerus fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2021;30:2197-205.

Cooper CM, Gray HM, Ross AE, Tom AH, Jaye BD, Cole W, et al. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of otolaryngology randomized controlled trials. The Laryngoscope. 2018;2036-40.

Jellison S, Roberts W, Bowers A, Tyler C, Jason B, Cole W, et al. Evaluation of spin in abstracts of papers in psychiatry and psychology journals. BMJ Evid-Based Med. 2019:178-81.

Morgan G, Tremayne K, Ryan O, Wade A, Taylor CR, Micah H, et al. Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Focused on the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: Cross-Sectional Analysis. Tob Prev Cessat. 2021;7:35.

Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg. 2003;73(9):712-6.

Fletcher RH, Black B. “Spin” in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy. Med Law. 2007;26(3):511-25.

Weed DL. Preventing scientific misconduct. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(1):125-9.

Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Nietzke F. Family physicians’ use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14(6):437-42.