澳大利亚悉尼大学Lisa Bero小组宣布他们对倾向性陈述研究中的倾向性陈述问题进行了荟萃分析。相关论文于2019年12月18日发表在《英国医学杂志》上。

倾向性陈述分类为：报告实践扭曲结果呈现和解释，产生误导性结论；结果和解释不一致，提出数据和结果均不支持的有利结论；研究设计不支持的因果关系；以及对结果的过度解释或推断不当。

研究组选择了35项关于科学文献倾向性陈述的研究并进行荟萃分析，发现有5项（14%）包含倾向性陈述，其中2例为报告实践扭曲结果呈现和解释，3例为结果过度解释或推断不当。

总之，在倾向性陈述的研究中存在着倾向性陈述。尽管这方面的研究人员对他们研究的倾向性陈述很敏感，但研究组仍进行了严格干预，以减少各个领域的倾向性陈述。

倾向性陈述研究中的倾向性陈述少于其他主题的研究。与其他研究人员相比，倾向性陈述研究的学者不太可能对他们的结论进行倾向性陈述，他们应该获得大量资源来启动和测试干预措施，以减少报告中的倾向性陈述和研究浪费。

附：英文原文

Title: The SSSPIN study—spin in studies of spin: meta-research analysis

Author: Lisa Bero, Kellia Chiu, Quinn Grundy

Issue&Volume: 2019/12/18

Abstract: 

Objectives To identify and calculate the prevalence of spin in studies of spin.

Design Meta-research analysis (research on research).

Setting 35 studies of spin in the scientific literature.

Main outcome measures Spin, categorised as: reporting practices that distort the presentation and interpretation of results, creating misleading conclusions; discordance between results and their interpretation, with presentation of favourable conclusions that are not supported by the data or results; attribution of causality when study design does not support it; and over-interpretation or inappropriate extrapolation of results.

Results Five (14%) of 35 spin studies contained spin categorised as reporting practices that distort the presentation and interpretation of results (n=2) or categorised as over-interpretation or inappropriate extrapolation of results (n=3).

Conclusion Spin occurs in research on spin. Although researchers on this topic should be sensitive to spinning their findings, our study does not undermine the need for rigorous interventions to reduce spin across various research fields.

Conclusion with spin Our hypothesis that spin will be less prevalent in spin studies than in studies on other topics has been proven. Spin scholars are less likely to spin their conclusions than other researchers, and they should receive substantial resources to launch and test interventions to reduce spin and research waste in reporting.

DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6202

Source: https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6202