"Spin" in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy
- PMID: 17970249
"Spin" in scientific writing: scientific mischief and legal jeopardy
Abstract
In science, the data are supposed to speak for themselves. However, investigators have great latitude in how they report their results in the medical literature, even in an era of research protocols, pre-specified endpoints, reporting guidelines, and rigorous peer review. Authors' personal agendas, such as financial, personal, and intellectual conflicts of interest, can and sometimes do color how research results are described. Articles in peer-reviewed medical journals are the evidence base not only for the care of patients but also for legal decisions and the scientific record may be tailored for legal reasons as well. Journal editors preside over where and how the results of scientific research are published. We therefore suggest some actions that editors can take to foster a more trustworthy evidence base both for the care of patients and for legal decisions.
Similar articles
-
Ethical behaviour of authors in biomedical journalism.Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can. 2002 Mar;35(2):81-5. Ann R Coll Physicians Surg Can. 2002. PMID: 12755122
-
Scientific journals and their authors' financial interests: a pilot study.Psychother Psychosom. 1998 Jul-Oct;67(4-5):194-201. doi: 10.1159/000012281. Psychother Psychosom. 1998. PMID: 9693346
-
When conflict-of-interest is a factor in scientific misconduct.Med Law. 2007 Sep;26(3):447-63. Med Law. 2007. PMID: 17970245
-
[Ethics in articles published in medical journals].Rev Med Chil. 2007 Apr;135(4):529-33. Epub 2007 May 16. Rev Med Chil. 2007. PMID: 17554464 Review. Spanish.
-
[Bad behaviors regarding research and scientific and medical publication].Rev Med Brux. 2013 Nov-Dec;34(6):491-9. Rev Med Brux. 2013. PMID: 24505870 Review. French.
Cited by
-
Assessment of spin in the abstracts of randomized controlled trials in dental caries with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes: A methodological study.Caries Res. 2023 Jun 15;57(5-6):553-562. doi: 10.1159/000531569. Online ahead of print. Caries Res. 2023. PMID: 37321204 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Outcome Reporting Bias in Government-Sponsored Policy Evaluations: A Qualitative Content Analysis of 13 Studies.PLoS One. 2016 Sep 30;11(9):e0163702. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0163702. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27690131 Free PMC article.
-
Misleading Reporting (Spin) in Noninferiority Randomized Clinical Trials in Oncology With Statistically Not Significant Results: A Systematic Review.JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Dec 1;4(12):e2135765. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.35765. JAMA Netw Open. 2021. PMID: 34874407 Free PMC article.
-
Spin in RCTs of anxiety medication with a positive primary outcome: a comparison of concerns expressed by the US FDA and in the published literature.BMJ Open. 2017 Mar 29;7(3):e012886. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012886. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28360236 Free PMC article.
-
Trends in the number and the quality of trial protocols involving children submitted to a French Institutional Review Board.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Aug 23;17(1):130. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0395-4. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017. PMID: 28835231 Free PMC article.