PubHawk
Syst Rev June 2023 PMID 37340504

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2).

Pauline A J Steegmans, Nicola Di Girolamo, Reint A Meursinge Reynders

Download social card

Mentions

2
Peak: 1 in Jun 2023
across 2 sources since Jun 2023

Extended reach

4,091
potential audience

Total likes

0

Video views

3

Mentions per month

Jun 2023 – Sep 2023

Where it's discussed

  • X / Twitter1 posts
  • YouTube1 videos

AI synopsis

What people are saying

The discussions reflect a generally positive attitude towards the idea that clear and honest reporting is crucial, with comments noting that about 40% of reviews contain misleading information about adverse effects. The tone ranges from cautious optimism to concern, with phrases like 'important reminder' and 'shining a light on' indicating recognition of the study's significance without overestimating its immediate impact.

AgreementModerate agreement

Most discussions acknowledge the importance of transparency in reporting adverse effects, with some expressing skepticism about the prevalence of spin suggested by the study.

InterestModerate interest

Participants demonstrate moderate interest, discussing implications for clinical practice and research integrity but not delving deeply into methodological details.

EngagementModerate engagement

The posts show thoughtful engagement, referencing specific aspects like the consistency of reporting issues and the need for improved transparency.

ImpactNeutral impact

While some posts suggest the study could influence future reporting standards, others see it as highlighting ongoing issues without immediate change.

Abstract in brief

  • This study looked at how well abstracts of systematic reviews in orthodontics report both positive and negative effects of treatments, finding that many reviews (about 40%) include misleading or "spin" information about adverse effects, especially when the reporting is not fully transparent.
  • The research compared reviews from highly reputable sources like the Cochrane database and leading orthodontic journals from 2009 to 2021, revealing that the likelihood of spin was similar across these sources and did not significantly change over time or with the number of authors.
  • Overall, the study highlights a consistent issue with the way adverse effects are presented in orthodontic research summaries, emphasizing the need for more honest and clear reporting to better inform clinicians and patients.]
Read the full abstract

Top posts

Most liked on X and Bluesky
General Medicine and Medical Evidence @ BMC
@MedicalEvidence · X

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2) https://t.co/KPH0VolyQ0

Jun 20, 2023 · 4,088 followers View post →

All mentions

General Medicine and Medical Evidence @ BMC
@MedicalEvidence · X

Spin on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 2) https://t.co/KPH0VolyQ0

Jun 20, 2023 · 4,088 followers View post →