TY -的盟Ottwell瑞安非盟-罗杰斯,泰勒C AU -安德森,J迈克尔AU -约翰逊,奥斯丁盟——瓦萨尔马特PY - 2020 DA - 2020/3/20 TI -评价旋转抽象的系统回顾和荟萃分析集中在治疗寻常痤疮:横断面分析乔- JMIR北京医学SP - e16978六世- 3 - 1 KW -寻常痤疮KW -系统回顾KW -抽象KW -皮肤科AB -背景:Spin是对研究结果的错误表述，它可能会积极或消极地影响读者对结果的解释。在系统综述的摘要中，特别是与寻常痤疮的管理和治疗有关的系统综述中，关于旋转的流行情况知之甚少。目的:本研究的主要目的是描述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相关。方法:采用横断面研究设计，我们检索PubMed和EMBASE，对寻常痤疮的管理和治疗进行系统综述。我们的搜索返回了316项研究，其中36项包含在我们的最终样本中。为了入选，每一篇系统综述必须涉及寻常痤疮的药物或非药物治疗。这些研究经过筛选，数据由两名盲法研究者一式两份提取。我们分析了九种最严重的旋转类型的系统综述摘要。结果:31%(11/36)的摘要中存在Spin。 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. SN - 2562-0959 UR - http://derma.www.mybigtv.com/2020/1/e16978/ UR - https://doi.org/10.2196/16978 DO - 10.2196/16978 ID - info:doi/10.2196/16978 ER -