Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
Related content
(Reference retrieved automatically from Web of Science through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Abstracts of Low Back Pain Trials Are Poorly Reported, Contain Spin of Information, and Are Inconsistent With the Full Text: An Overview Study

Full text
Author(s):
Nascimento, Dafne P. [1] ; Costa, Leonardo O. P. [1] ; Gonzalez, Gabrielle Z. [1] ; Maher, Christopher G. [2] ; Moseley, Anne M. [2]
Total Authors: 5
Affiliation:
[1] Univ Cidade Sao Paulo, Masters & Doctoral Programs Phys Therapy, Rua Cesario Galeno 448, BR-03071000 Sao Paulo, SP - Brazil
[2] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, Musculoskeletal Hlth Sydney, Sydney, NSW - Australia
Total Affiliations: 2
Document type: Journal article
Source: ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION; v. 100, n. 10, p. 1976-1985, OCT 2019.
Web of Science Citations: 4
Abstract

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. (C) 2019 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine (AU)

FAPESP's process: 15/16953-2 - Analyses of accuracy and quality of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in physiotherapy for low back pain
Grantee:Dafne Port Nascimento
Support Opportunities: Scholarships in Brazil - Master