Skip to main content

Table 2 Cohort A: prevalence and type of spin by main text by section

From: “Spin” in wound care research: the reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically non-significant primary outcome results or unspecified primary outcomes

 

Dichotomous outcomes

Continuous outcomes

All studies

 

Number

(%)

Number

(%)

Number

(%)

 

n = 13

n = 15

n = 28

Results – any type*

4

(30.8)

4

(26.7)

8

(28.6)

Focus on statistically significant results from:

      

Within-group analyses

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

Subgroups

4

(30.8)

3

(20.0)

7

(25.0)

Secondary outcomes

0

(0.0)

3

(20.0)

3

(10.7)

Per protocol analysis

2

(15.4)

1

(6.7)

3

(10.7)

Other

1

(7.7)

0

(0.0)

1

(3.6)

Discussion – any type

8

(61.5)

8

(53.3)

16

(57.1)

Focus on statistically significant results from:

      

Within-group analyses

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

Subgroups

4

(30.8)

4

(26.7)

8

(28.6)

Secondary outcomes

0

(0.0)

5

(33.3)

5

(17.9)

Per protocol analysis

2

(15.4)

1

(6.7)

3

(10.7)

Claims equivalence

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

Rules out adverse effect

1

(7.7)

5

(33.3)

6

(21.4)

Other

5

(38.5)

0

(0.0)

5

(17.9)

Conclusions – any type

7

(53.8)

10

(66.6)

17

(60.7)

Claims effectiveness with no acknowledgement of NS results for primary outcome

4

(30.8)

4

(26.7)

8

(28.6)

Claims equivalence

1

(7.7)

5

(33.3)

6

(21.4)

Rules out adverse effect

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

Acknowledges non-significance, but emphasizes significant results for other outcomes

3

(23.1)

4

(26.7)

7

(25.0)

Acknowledges non-significance, but emphasizes treatment benefit

2

(15.4)

3

(20.0)

5

(17.9)

Emphasizes benefit based on new outcome

1

(7.7)

3

(20.0

4

(14.3)

Other

0

(0.0)

0

(0.0)

2

(7.1)

  1. *More than one type could be used in each section of a report. NS, non-significant.