Spin em revisões sistemáticas na área de odontologia restauradora

Abstract

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (SRMAs) are often used for summarizing evidence on a given subject and are important sources of information for healthcare professionals, patients and/or managers. To be reliable useful, SRMAs need a rigorous methodology and adequate reporting. In the writing process, researchers have free choice of how they will represent and interpret their data, and may be instigated, consciously or not, to distort the impression that these results will generate on readers, and consequently spin the report of their studies. Spin can occur due to a lack of understanding the methodological principles, in an attempt of some authors to convince readers of their findings, an unconscious way or a real desire to deceive the reader, however, most of the time it favors personal interest of the author of the publication, be it financial, intellectual and/or academic. The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of spin and completeness of reporting SRMAs from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in restorative dentistry. Inclusion criteria were: SRMA of RCTs in restorative dentistry on survival rates, success or failure of treatments in humans, without language or year restriction. Those SRMA which included types of studies other than RCTs were excluded. PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched through April 2022. The prevalence of spin (primary outcome) and completeness of reporting (secondary outcome) in the abstract and full text of included articles were evaluated. Data were presented as means and standard deviation or absolute and relative frequencies. The spin in each item was considered low when it occurred in less than 25% of the articles, moderate (25 to 75%) or high (more than 75%). We identified 7029 studies and 49 manuscripts were included in the analysis. There was a moderate presence of spin in abstracts and low in full texts. In the abstracts, 65.9% reported no adverse events, while in the abstract and full text, more than 16% reported a conclusion containing recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings. Regarding the completeness of the report, there was inadequate reporting for most of the checklist items in the summary, while there was adequate reporting in the full texts, except for the name of the SRMA registration platform and the registration number (not reported in 32.7 %). SRMA abstracts in restorative dentistry should be better reported, as poor reporting was more frequent in abstracts and may lead readers to perceive clinical recommendations that may be inappropriate. Spin is a harmful practice in the scientific community. The non-description of adverse effects is unsettling and the absence of this information can lead to false interpretations, affecting clinical decision making and choice of treatment by dentists and patients.