Abstracts for reports of randomized trials of COVID-19 interventions had low quality and high spin

Objectives: To assess the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), including the use of spin strategies and the level of spin for RCTs with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, and to explore potential predictors for reporting quality and the severity of spin. Study Design and Setting: PubMed was searched to find RCTs that tested interventions for COVID-19, and the reporting quality and spin in the abstracts were assessed. Linear regression analyses were used to identify potential predictors. Results: Forty RCT abstracts were included in our assessment of reporting quality, and a higher word count in the abstract was significantly correlated with higher reporting scores (95% CI 0.044-0.658, P = 0 .026). Multiple spin strategies were identified. Our multivariate analyses showed that geographical origin was associated with severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies (95% CI-0.756 to-0.096, P = 0 .014). Conclusions: The reporting quality of abstracts of RCTs of interventions for COVID-19 is far from satisfactory. A relatively high proportion of the abstracts contained spin, and the findings reported in the results and conclusion sections of these abstracts need to be interpreted with caution. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Automated summary

The study assessed the reporting quality of abstracts for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of COVID-19 interventions, finding a significant correlation between abstract word count and reporting scores, as well as identifying multiple spin strategies. Geographical origin was associated with the severity of spin, with research from non-Asian regions containing fewer spin strategies.