JMIR出版物中关于寻常痤疮治疗的系统评价和荟萃分析摘要中自旋的评价:卡塔尔世界杯8强波胆分析横断面分析%A Ottwell,Ryan %A Rogers,Taylor C %A Anderson,J Michael %A Johnson,Austin %A Vassar,Matt %+俄克拉荷马州立大学健康科学中心，图尔萨市17街1111号，OK, 74107，美国，1 9189918718,ryan.ottwell@okstate.edu %K普通痤疮%K系统评价%K摘要%K皮肤科%D 2020 %7 20.3.2020 %9原始论文%J JMIR Dermatol %G English %XSpin是对研究结果的歪曲，这可能会对读者对结果的解释产生积极或消极的影响。很少有人知道关于旋转的普遍性在系统评价的摘要，特别是系统评价有关寻常痤疮的管理和治疗。目的:本研究的主要目的是表征和确定系统综述摘要中最严重形式的自旋的频率，并评估各种研究特征是否与自旋有关。方法:采用横断面研究设计，检索PubMed和EMBASE，对寻常痤疮的管理和治疗进行系统评价。我们检索了316项研究，其中36项纳入了我们的最终样本。要被纳入，每个系统综述必须涉及寻常痤疮的药物或非药物治疗。对这些研究进行筛选，并由两名盲法调查人员一式两份提取数据。我们分析了9种最严重的自旋类型的系统综述摘要。 Results: Spin was present in 31% (11/36) of abstracts. A total of 12 examples of spin were identified in the 11 abstracts containing spin, with one abstract containing two instances of spin. The most common type of spin, selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention, was identified five times (5/12, 42%). A total of 44% (16/36) of studies did not report a risk of bias assessment. Of the 11 abstracts containing spin, six abstracts (55%) had not reported a risk of bias assessment or performed a risk of bias assessment but did not discuss it. Spin in abstracts was not significantly associated with a specific intervention type, funding source, or journal impact factor. Conclusions: Spin is present in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering the treatment of acne vulgaris. This paper raises awareness of spin in abstracts and emphasizes the importance of its recognition, which may lead to fewer incidences of spin in future studies. %R 10.2196/16978 %U http://derma.www.mybigtv.com/2020/1/e16978/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/16978

map