High prevalence of spin was found in pharmacovigilance studies using disproportionality analyses to detect safety signals: a meta-epidemiological study

Objective: To systematically review and appraise misinterpretation of pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis results in published studies. Study Design and Setting: We randomly selected 100 studies that performed disproportionality analyses and indexed in Medline identified during a systematic literature search. Titles, abstracts and main texts (results, discussion and conclusion) were evaluated for spin independently by two reviewers. Spin in pharmacovigilance studies was classified according to three main categories: inappropriate interpretation, inappropriate extrapolations and misleading reporting. Results: Of the 100 studies evaluated, we found that 63%, 56% and 51% had at least one type of spin in their abstract, main text or conclusion respectively, and 40% used causal language to interpret their results in the abstract or conclusion. Spin in titles and results were exclusively represented by inappropriate interpretations of findings (12% and 21% respectively), with terms such as risk of or risks associated with or results erroneously presented as regular Odds Ratios. Spin in discussion sections mostly concerned inappropriate interpretations (38%)and misleading reporting (12%). Misleading reporting, notably failing to acknowledge the limitations of disproportionality analyses, was the most frequent type of spin in abstracts (55%) and conclusion sections (37%). Conclusion: We found that spin is frequent in publications of pharmacovigilance disproportionality analyses, notably in abstracts. This consisted notably in an over-interpretation of the results suggesting a proven causative link between a drug use and the risk of an event. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

The study systematically reviewed and evaluated the misinterpretation of pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis results in published studies. Results showed a high frequency of spin in abstracts, with inappropriate interpretations, causal language use, and failure to acknowledge limitations being common forms of spin. The findings suggest a need for greater attention to accurate reporting and interpretation in pharmacovigilance studies.