PDF(Sci-hub)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To investigate trials abstracts evaluating treatments for low back pain with regards to completeness of reporting, spin (i.e., interpretation of study results that overemphasizes the beneficial effects of the intervention), and inconsistencies in data with the full text.
METHODS: The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.
METHODS: This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.
METHODS: Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.
RESULTS: The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.
METHODS: The search was performed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in February 2016.
METHODS: This is an overview study of a random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015. The languages of publication were restricted to English, Spanish and Portuguese.
METHODS: Completeness of reporting was assessed using the CONSORT for Abstracts checklist (CONSORT-A). Spin was assessed using a SPIN-checklist. Consistency between abstract and full text were assessed by applying the assessment tools to both the abstract and full text of each trial and calculating inconsistencies in the summary score (paired t test) and agreement in the classification of each item (Kappa statistics). Methodological quality was analyzed using the total PEDro score.
RESULTS: The mean number of fully reported items for abstracts using the CONSORT-A was 5.1 (SD 2.4) out of 15 points and the mean number of items with spin was 4.9 (SD 2.6) out of 7 points. Abstract and full text scores were statistically inconsistent (P=0.01). There was slight to moderate agreement between items of the CONSORT-A in the abstracts and full text (mean Kappa 0.20 SD 0.13) and fair to moderate agreement for items of the SPIN-checklist (mean Kappa 0.47 SD 0.09).
CONCLUSIONS: The abstracts were incomplete, with spin and inconsistent with the full text. We advise health care professionals to avoid making clinical decisions based solely upon abstracts. Journal editors, reviewers and authors are jointly responsible for improving abstracts, which could be guided by amended editorial policies.
摘要：
目的：研究评估下背痛治疗方法的试验摘要报告的完整性，自旋(即，对过分强调干预措施有益效果的研究结果的解释)，以及数据与全文的不一致。
方法：搜索于2016年2月在物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）上进行。
方法：这是对2010年至2015年间发表的200项腰背痛试验的随机样本的概述研究。出版语言仅限于英语，西班牙语和葡萄牙语。
方法：使用CONSORTforAbstracts核对表（CONSORT-A）评估报告的完整性。使用SPIN检查表评估自旋。通过将评估工具应用于每个试验的摘要和全文，并计算摘要得分（配对t检验）和每个项目分类（Kappa统计）的一致性，评估摘要和全文之间的一致性。采用PEDro总评分对方法学质量进行分析。
结果：使用CONSORT-A的摘要的完整报告项目的平均数量为5.1（SD2.4），共15个百分点，旋转项目的平均数量为4.9（SD2.6），共7个百分点。摘要与全文分差异有统计学意义(P=0.01)。摘要和全文中的CONSORT-A项目之间存在轻度到中度的一致性（平均Kappa0.20SD0.13），而SPIN清单项目的一致性（平均Kappa0.47SD0.09）。
结论：摘要不完整，与旋转和与全文不一致。我们建议医疗保健专业人员避免仅根据摘要做出临床决策。期刊编辑,审稿人和作者共同负责改进摘要，这可以由修改后的编辑政策指导。
方法：搜索于2016年2月在物理治疗证据数据库（PEDro）上进行。
方法：这是对2010年至2015年间发表的200项腰背痛试验的随机样本的概述研究。出版语言仅限于英语，西班牙语和葡萄牙语。
方法：使用CONSORTforAbstracts核对表（CONSORT-A）评估报告的完整性。使用SPIN检查表评估自旋。通过将评估工具应用于每个试验的摘要和全文，并计算摘要得分（配对t检验）和每个项目分类（Kappa统计）的一致性，评估摘要和全文之间的一致性。采用PEDro总评分对方法学质量进行分析。
结果：使用CONSORT-A的摘要的完整报告项目的平均数量为5.1（SD2.4），共15个百分点，旋转项目的平均数量为4.9（SD2.6），共7个百分点。摘要与全文分差异有统计学意义(P=0.01)。摘要和全文中的CONSORT-A项目之间存在轻度到中度的一致性（平均Kappa0.20SD0.13），而SPIN清单项目的一致性（平均Kappa0.47SD0.09）。
结论：摘要不完整，与旋转和与全文不一致。我们建议医疗保健专业人员避免仅根据摘要做出临床决策。期刊编辑,审稿人和作者共同负责改进摘要，这可以由修改后的编辑政策指导。
