LAUSR

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Objectives: Spin is a reporting bias that presents the beneficial effect of an experimental treatment as greater than what is found in the results of the study. This bias can result in patient care recommendations that are more subjective than objective. The purpose of this study was to identify the prevalence of spin in meta-analysis and systematic review abstracts regarding treatment of midshaft clavicle fractures. Methods: Electronic libraries (MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were systematically searched. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews regarding treatment of midshaft clavicular fractures were analyzed. The 9 most severe types of spin commonly found in abstracts were used as an evaluation tool to assess the articles. Other variables analyzed include year of publication, journal impact factor, number of citations, and methodologic quality according to A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2. Results: The database search resulted in 401 articles, of which 53 met inclusion criteria. After review, it was found that 52.8% (28/53) of the included articles contained spin within the abstract. Of the 9 most severe types of spin found in abstracts, type 3 spin (“selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention”) was found to be the most prevalent 28.3% (15/53). Conclusions: This study demonstrated the presence of spin in the majority of meta-analyses and systematic review abstracts pertaining to midshaft clavicular fractures. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware and recognize spin as they review articles when deciding the treatment course for such injuries.