• Craig M Cooper, Harrison M Gray, Andrew E Ross, Tom A Hamilton, Jaye Bea Downs, Cole Wayant, and Matt Vassar.
• Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.A.
• Laryngoscope. 2018 Dec 21: 2036-2040.

ObjectiveSpin, the misrepresentation and distortion of research findings, has been shown to affect clinical decision making. Spin has been found in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in various fields of medicine, but no study has tested for the presence of spin in otolaryngology RCTs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the abstracts of RCTs found in the otolaryngology literature for spin.MethodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we analyzed the abstracts of RCTs for spin using a pilot-tested form. Double data extraction was performed by two blinded authors, and discrepancies were resolved using mutual discussion.ResultsOut of the 534 PubMed citations retrieved by our search string, 162 parallel-group RCTs with clearly defined primary and secondary endpoints were identified. Further analysis identified 47 trials with nonsignificant primary outcomes, which were then evaluated for spin. Spin was identified in 33 of the 47 (70%) abstracts. Spin was found in the results sections of 25 (53%) of the included abstracts and was found in the conclusion section of 27 (57%) of the abstracts. Spin was not present in the titles of any of the included studies.ConclusionSpin was common in our sample of otolaryngology RCTs. Spin may potentially create false impressions about the true validity of a drug or intervention. Further research needs to test for potential clinical implications of spin in the otolaryngology literature.Level Of EvidenceNA. Laryngoscope, 2018.© 2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.

4 keywords...

hide…