Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Emergency Medicine Randomized Controlled Trials

      Study objective

      We aim to investigate spin in emergency medicine abstracts, using a sample of randomized controlled trials from high-impact-factor journals with statistically nonsignificant primary endpoints.


      This study investigated spin in abstracts of emergency medicine randomized controlled trials from emergency medicine literature, with studies from 2013 to 2017 from the top 5 emergency medicine journals and general medical journals. Investigators screened records for inclusion and extracted data for spin. We considered evidence of spin if trial authors focused on statistically significant results, interpreted statistically nonsignificant results as equivalent or noninferior, used favorable rhetoric in the interpretation of nonsignificant results, or claimed benefit of an intervention despite statistically nonsignificant results.


      Of 772 abstracts screened, 114 randomized controlled trials reported statistically nonsignificant primary endpoints. Spin was found in 50 of 114 abstracts (44.3%). Industry-funded trials were more likely to have evidence of spin in the abstract (unadjusted odds ratio 3.4; 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 11.9). In the abstracts’ results, evidence of spin was most often due to authors’ emphasizing a statistically significant subgroup analysis (n=9). In the abstracts’ conclusions, spin was most often due to authors’ claiming they accomplished an objective that was not a prespecified endpoint (n=14).


      Spin was prevalent in the selected randomized controlled trial, emergency medicine abstracts. Authors most commonly incorporated spin into their reports by focusing on statistically significant results for secondary outcomes or subgroup analyses when the primary outcome was statistically nonsignificant. Spin was more common in studies that had some component of industry funding.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      ACEP Member Login
      ACEP Members, full access to the journal is a member benefit. Use your society credentials to access all journal content and features.
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Cantrill S.V.
        • Brown M.D.
        • Brecher D.
        Clinical policy: use of intravenous tissue plasminogen activator for the management of acute ischemic stroke in the emergency department.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2015; 66: 322-333.e31
        • Diercks D.B.
        • Mehrotra A.
        • Nazarian D.J.
        • et al.
        Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute blunt abdominal trauma.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2011; 57: 387-404
        • Fesmire F.M.
        • Bernstein D.
        • Brecher D.
        Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with seizures.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2014; 62: 59-68
        • Jagoda A.S.
        • Bazarian J.J.
        • Bruns Jr., J.J.
        • et al.
        Clinical policy: neuroimaging and decisionmaking in adult mild traumatic brain injury in the acute setting.
        J Emerg Nurs. 2009; 35: e5-e40
        • Altman D.G.
        • Schulz K.F.
        • Moher D.
        • et al.
        The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration.
        Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663-694
        • De Angelis C.
        • Drazen J.M.
        • Frizelle F.A.
        • et al.
        Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
        N Engl J Med. 2004; 351: 1250-1251
        • Fletcher R.H.
        • Black B.
        “Spin” in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy.
        Med Law. 2007; 26: 511-525
        • Sumpter R.
        • Tankard J.W.
        The spin doctor: an alternative model of public relations.
        Public Relat Rev. 1994; 20: 19-27
        • Boutron I.
        • Dutton S.
        • Ravaud P.
        • et al.
        Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes.
        JAMA. 2010; 303: 2058-2064
        • Stamatakis E.
        • Bero L.
        • Fórnias Machado de Rezende L.
        • et al.
        Reporting bias in the literature on the associations of health-related behaviors and statins with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality.
        PloS One. 2018; 16: e2005761
        • Boutron I.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Hopewell S.
        • et al.
        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. 2014; 32: 4120-4126
        • Vera-Badillo F.E.
        • Shapiro R.
        • Ocana A.
        • et al.
        Bias in reporting of end points of efficacy and toxicity in randomized, clinical trials for women with breast cancer.
        Ann Oncol. 2013; 24: 1238-1244
        • Arunachalam L.
        • Hunter I.A.
        • Killeen S.
        Reporting of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes published in high-impact surgical journals.
        Ann Surg. 2017; 265: 1141-1145
        • Lockyer S.
        • Hodgson R.
        • Dumville J.C.
        • et al.
        “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes.
        Trials. 2013; 14: 371
        • US Department of Health and Human Services
        Protection of human subjects.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 15, 2018)
      1. Wayant C, Vassar M. Central protocol for assessing spin in the biomedical literature. 2018. Available at: Accessed May 2, 2019.

        • Ouzzani M.
        • Hammady H.
        • Fedorowicz Z.
        • et al.
        Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews.
        Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 210
        • Amos A.J.
        A review of spin and bias use in the early intervention in psychosis literature.
        Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2014; 16 (PCC.13r01586)
        • Gewandter J.S.
        • McKeown A.
        • McDermott M.P.
        • et al.
        Data interpretation in analgesic clinical trials with statistically nonsignificant primary analyses: an ACTTION systematic review.
        J Pain. 2015; 16: 3-10
        • Le Fourn E.
        • Giraudeau B.
        • Chosidow O.
        • et al.
        Study design and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials of chronic idiopathic or autoimmune urticaria: review.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e70717
        • Hernandez A.V.
        • Pasupuleti V.
        • Deshpande A.
        • et al.
        Deficient reporting and interpretation of non-inferiority randomized clinical trials in HIV patients: a systematic review.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e63272
        • Ochodo E.A.
        • de Haan M.C.
        • Reitsma J.B.
        • et al.
        Overinterpretation and misreporting of diagnostic accuracy studies: evidence of “spin.”.
        Radiology. 2013; 267: 581-588
        • Lumbreras B.
        • Parker L.A.
        • Porta M.
        • et al.
        Overinterpretation of clinical applicability in molecular diagnostic research.
        Clin Chem. 2009; 55: 786-794
        • Hagbom M.
        • Novak D.
        • Ekström M.
        • et al.
        Ondansetron treatment reduces rotavirus symptoms—a randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled trial.
        PLoS One. 2017; 12: e0186824
        • Saver J.L.
        • Starkman S.
        • Eckstein M.
        • et al.
        Prehospital use of magnesium sulfate as neuroprotection in acute stroke.
        N Engl J Med. 2015; 372: 528-536
        • Boutron I.
        • Ravaud P.
        Misrepresentation and distortion of research in biomedical literature.
        Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018; 115: 2613-2619
        • Rattinger G.
        • Bero L.
        Factors associated with results and conclusions of trials of thiazolidinediones.
        PLoS One. 2009; 4: e5826
        • Als-Nielsen B.
        • Chen W.
        • Gluud C.
        • et al.
        Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 921-928
        • Yank V.
        • Rennie D.
        • Bero L.A.
        Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study.
        BMJ. 2007; 335: 1202-1205
        • Bero L.
        • Oostvogel F.
        • Bacchetti P.
        • et al.
        Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others.
        PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e184
        • Hopewell S.
        • Loudon K.
        • Clarke M.J.
        • et al.
        Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009; 1: MR000006
      2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Policy and Global Affairs; Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy; Committee on Responsible Science. Fostering Integrity in Research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC2018
        • Moher D.
        • Hopewell S.
        • Schulz K.F.
        • et al.
        CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.
        Int J Surg. 2012; 10: 28-55
        • Greenhalgh T.
        Commentary: scientific heads are not turned by rhetoric.
        BMJ. 1995; 310: 987-988
        • Montori V.M.
        • Jaeschke R.
        • Schünemann H.J.
        • et al.
        Users’ guide to detecting misleading claims in clinical research reports.
        BMJ. 2004; 329: 1093-1096
        • Sutherland W.J.
        • Spiegelhalter D.
        • Burgman M.A.
        Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims.
        Nature. 2013; 503: 335-337