Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of Matrix-induced Autologous Cartilage Implantation (MACI).

Abstract

Reporting bias is prominent within study abstracts and has the potential to influence readers and affect patient care. The purpose of our study is to identify and describe the incidence of spin in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of matrix-induced autologous cartilage implantation (MACI). Using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed and Embase were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on MACI. Screening and data extraction were conducted independently by two authors. Abstracts were assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Study quality was assessed per AMSTAR 2 guidelines. Additional data extracted included publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol with PROSPERO, and primary and secondary endpoints. Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. At least 1 form of spin was observed in all 16 (100%) studies. Type 10 spin was the most common, observed in 8 (50%) studies. Associations Between adherence to AMSTAR guideline 7 and publication date (p-value = 0.007) as well as AMSTAR guideline 7 and adherence to PRISMA guidelines (p-value = 0.035) were noted. Spin is prevalent in all abstracts of MACI systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Studies published later and those that adhered to PRISMA guidelines were more likely to adhere to AMSTAR criterion 7, which focused on reporting excluded studies.