Evaluating spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on cannabis use disorder

References

• Degenhardt L, Hall W. Extent of illicit drug use and dependence, and their contribution to the global burden of disease. Lancet. 2012;379(9810):55–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Drug Report 2019. https://wdr.unodc.org/wdr2019/. Accessed May 28, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SRB. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2219–2227.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall W, Degenhardt L. Adverse health effects of non-medical cannabis use. Lancet. 2009;374(9698):1383–1391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel J, Marwaha R. Cannabis use disorder. In: StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hasin DS, Kerridge BT, Saha TD, et al. Prevalence and correlates of DSM-5 cannabis use disorder, 2012–2013: findings from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions-III. Am J Psychiatry. 2016;173(6):588–599.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hasin DS. US epidemiology of cannabis use and associated problems. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2018;43(1):195–212.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barry HC, Ebell MH, Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Nietzke F. Family physicians’ use of medical abstracts to guide decision making: style or substance? J Am Board Fam Pract. 2001;14(6):437–442.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Islamaj Dogan R, Murray GC, Névéol A, Lu Z. Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis. Database (Oxford). 2009;2009:bap018.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Yavchitz A, Ravaud P, Altman DG, et al. A new classification of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses was developed and ranked according to the severity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;75:56–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakayama T, Hirai N, Yamazaki S, Naito M. Adoption of structured abstracts by general medical journals and format for a structured abstract. J Med Libr Assoc. 2005;93(2):237–242.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P. 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(36):4120–4126.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA. 2010;303(20):2058–2064.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steegmans PAJ, Di Girolamo N, Meursinge Reynders RA. Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4(1):1–11.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chiu K, Grundy Q, Bero L. ‘Spin’ in published biomedical literature: a methodological systematic review . PLoS Biol. 2017;15(9):e2002173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JPA, Munafò MR, Fusar-Poli P, Nosek BA, David SP. Publication and other reporting biases in cognitive sciences: detection, prevalence, and prevention. Trends Cogn Sci. 2014;18(5):235–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGrath TA, McInnes MDF, van Es N, Leeflang MMG, Korevaar DA, Bossuyt PMM. Overinterpretation of research findings: evidence of “spin” in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. Clin Chem. 2017;63(8):1353–1362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nascimento DP, Gonzalez GZ, Araujo AC, Moseley AM, Maher CG, Costa LOP. Eight in every 10 abstracts of low back pain systematic reviews presented spin and inconsistencies with the full text: an analysis of 66 systematic reviews. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2020;50(1):17–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fihn SD. Combating misrepresentation of research findings. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://www.coursera.org/learn/systematic-review. Accessed June 13, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hartwell M. AMSTAR 2 training. https://osf.io/wy3cn/. Published online June 4, 2020. Accessed November 8, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storman M, Storman D, Jasinska KW, Swierz MJ, Bala MM. The quality of systematic reviews/meta‐analyses published in the field of bariatrics: a cross‐sectional systematic survey using AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS. Obesity Reviews. 2020;21(5):e12994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Q, Deng K, Jiang X, Tao H, Liu H, Chen J. Methodological quality assessment of systematic review or meta-analysis using AMSTAR-2: the long-term effectiveness or efficacy of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Published online August 6, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Han J, Zhu Y-B, et al. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:4–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldkuhle M, Narayan VM, Weigl A, Dahm P, Skoetz N. A systematic assessment of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in high-impact medical journals related to cancer. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e020869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthias K, Rissling O, Nocon M, et al. Appraisal of the methodological quality of systematic reviews on pharmacological and psychological interventions for major depression in adults using the AMSTAR 2. Published online May 30, 2019;
   Google Scholar
• Lorenz RC, Matthias K, Pieper D, et al. A psychometric study found AMSTAR 2 to be a valid and moderately reliable appraisal tool. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;114:133–140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ottwell R, Rogers TC, Michael Anderson J, Johnson A, Vassar M. Evaluation of spin in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on the treatment of acne vulgaris: cross-sectional analysis. JMIR Dermatol. 2020;3(1):e16978.
   Google Scholar
• PRISMA. http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/Checklist.aspx. Accessed June 19, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kinder NC, Weaver MD, Wayant C, Vassar M. Presence of “‘spin’ in the abstracts and titles of anaesthesiology randomised controlled trials.” Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(1):e13–e14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan MS, Lateef N, Siddiqi TJ, et al. Level and prevalence of spin in published cardiovascular randomized clinical trial reports with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(5):e192622.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts WB, Cooper CM, Khattab M, et al. Evaluation of “Spin” in the abstracts of randomized controlled trial reports in cardiology. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2020;120(11):732–739.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin J, Smith C, Natarajan K, Som M, Wayant C, Vassar M. Evaluation of spin within abstracts in obesity randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional review. Clin Obes. 2019;9(2):e12292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghannad M, Olsen M, Boutron I, Bossuyt PM. A systematic review finds that spin or interpretation bias is abundant in evaluations of ovarian cancer biomarkers. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;116:9–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel SV, Zhang L, Elsolh B, Yu D, Chadi SA. Spin in articles about minimally invasive transanal total mesorectal excision: an assessment of the current literature. Colorectal Dis. 2019;21(1):8–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wayant C, Margalski D, Vaughn K, Vassar M. Evaluation of spin in oncology clinical trials. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2019;144:102821.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieb K, von der Osten-Sacken J, Stoffers-Winterling J, Reiss N, Barth J. Conflicts of interest and spin in reviews of psychological therapies: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2016;6(4):e010606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaqman M, Al-Abedalla K, Wagner J, Swede H, Gunsolley JC, Ioannidou E. Reporting quality and spin in abstracts of randomized clinical trials of periodontal therapy and cardiovascular disease outcomes. PLoS One. 2020;15(4):e0230843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roszhart JI, Kumar SS, Allareddy V, Childs CA, Elangovan S. Spin in abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dentistry: a cross-sectional analysis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2020;151(1):26–32.e3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hua F, Sun Q, Zhao T, Chen X, He H. Reporting quality of randomised controlled trial abstracts presented at the SLEEP Annual Meetings: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(7):e029270.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, et al. A scoping review of comparisons between abstracts and full reports in primary biomedical research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):181.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lazarus C, Haneef R, Ravaud P, Boutron I. Classification and prevalence of spin in abstracts of non-randomized studies evaluating an intervention. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khan R, Naveed S, Mian N, Fida A, Raafey MA, Aedma KK. The therapeutic role of Cannabidiol in mental health: a systematic review. J Cannabis Res. 2020;2(1):2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Di Forti M, Quattrone D, Freeman TP, et al. The contribution of cannabis use to variation in the incidence of psychotic disorder across Europe (EU-GEI): a multicentre case-control study. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(5):427–436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sommer IE, van den Brink W. High-potency cannabis and incident psychosis: correcting the causal assumption. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(6):464–465.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hasan A, von Keller R, Friemel CM, et al. Cannabis use and psychosis: a review of reviews. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2020;270(4):403–412.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forti MD, Di Forti M, Morgan C, Selten J-P, Lynskey M, Murray RM. High-potency cannabis and incident psychosis: correcting the causal assumption – Authors’ reply. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(6):466–467.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peterson K, Anderson J, Bourne D. Evidence brief: use of patient reported outcome measures for measurement based care in mental health shared decision-making. In: VA Evidence Synthesis Program Evidence Briefs [Internet]. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US); 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Loflin MJE, Kiluk BD, Huestis MA, et al. The state of clinical outcome assessments for cannabis use disorder clinical trials: a review and research agenda. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;212:107993.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huestis MA, Smith ML. Cannabinoid markers in biological fluids and tissues: revealing intake. Trends Mol Med. 2018;24(2):156–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersson M, Scheidweiler KB, Sempio C, Barnes AJ, Huestis MA. Simultaneous quantification of 11 cannabinoids and metabolites in human urine by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry using WAX-S tips. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408(23):6461–6471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar