Can you fully trust what you read when it comes to medical (and orthopaedic!) research?
Gulbrandsen MT et al. Spin in the Abstracts of Meta-analyses and Systematic Reviews: Quadriceps Tendon Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2023; 51(8): 2079-2084. doi:10.1177/03635465231169042
Far too often in the ‘trusted’ medical literature, the headlines can be deceiving, and this should be a major concern to all.
The volume of readily-available information that people have access to nowadays is vastly greater than was routinely accessible in the past. This is a good thing, in terms of putting people in the driving seat when it comes to taking ownership for one’s own decision-making, and there are few areas where this is more important than healthcare, and one’s own heath.
Unfortunately, however, nowadays people’s attention spans seem to have shortened significantly, and far too many people are now addicted to just short punchy headlines, and brief social media posts with limited character counts. The danger comes in believing these sound bites without one actually doing the background reading necessary to validate (or refute!) what the person posting the info / opinion might be saying. In healthcare, this can be particularly dangerous, as patients and doctors alike can be misled by false information that may unduly and inappropriately influence their decision-making.
In a very interesting paper published last year in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, authors from the Loma Linda University in California analysed a collection of papers looking at the issue of the use of distal quads tendons for ACL reconstruction. The authors scrutinised a total of 13 published meta-analyses and systematic reviews, specifically looking for the presence of “spin” within the abstracts; meaning, the presence of reporting bias that misrepresents the actual research.
Shockingly, and worryingly, the authors that in over 50% of the papers there was clear evidence of spin, with the most common kind of spin observed being “selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy of outcomes”.
What does this mean?
It means that in over half of published meta-analyses or systematic reviews studied, there was clear evidence that the abstract of the paper ‘over-egged’ the potential positive results of the outcomes that can be anticipated from the use of quads tendons grafts for ACL reconstruction.
What’s the solution?
Simple: beware and be wary of what you read, particularly when it comes to just headlines or when it comes to abstracts. Abstracts, on their own, simply cannot be trusted, and if you want a proper understanding of a paper, then you simply have to read the whole paper!!