An Evaluation of Spin Within Abstracts of Systematic Reviews Concerning Treatments for Peyronie’s Disease

Authors

  • David Wenger Oklahoma State Center for Health Sciences
  • Greg Balcerak Oklahoma State Center for Health Sciences
  • Austin Johnson Oklahoma State Center for Health Sciences
  • Brad Johnson Oklahoma State Center for Health Sciences

Abstract

Background: Nearly 11% of men in the United States have Peyronie’s disease. Here we aim to determine which mechanisms of spin are the most common among those found in PD systematic reviews.

 

Methods: A search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was conducted and all returns were screened for inclusion criteria. Articles meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for the 9 most severe types of spin and characteristics including: intervention type, date of the review, funding source, PRISMA adherence of the review, PRISMA adherence for the journals that published the reviews, and the journals’ five-year impact factor, were extracted.

 

Results:  No spin was found in the abstracts of the 20 included systematic reviews.

Additionally, 60% (12/20) of the included systematic reviews did not mention a risk of bias assessment.

 

Conclusions: Systematic reviews pertaining to the treatment of Peyronie’s disease appear to contain factual reporting of study outcomes, however many of these studies are lacking in terms of methodological quality assessing for risk of bias. As a result of this finding, clinicians charged with the treatment of Peyronie’s disease should consume this research critically and cautiously as to not allow bias to affect their clinical decision making. Systematic reviews pertaining to the treatment of Peyronie’s disease appear to be free of spin, however, we recommend critical consumption of this research as risk of bias assessment appears to be lacking.

Downloads

Published

2022-05-16

Issue

Section

Medical