Adherence to the RIGHT statement in Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines.

CONTEXT: The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) Statement was developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts to improve reporting quality and transparency in clinical practice guideline development. OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting in clinical practice guidelines put forth by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) and their adherence to the RIGHT statement checklist. METHODS: In March 2018, using the 22 criteria listed in the RIGHT statement, two researchers independently documented adherence to each item for all eligible guidelines listed by the SIR by reading through each guideline and using the RIGHT statement elaboration and explanation document as a guide to determine if each item was appropriately addressed as listed in the checklist. To qualify for inclusion in this study, each guideline must have met the strict definition for a clinical practice guideline as set forth by the National Institute of Health and the Institute of Medicine, meaning they were informed by a systematic review of evidence and intended to direct patient care and physician decisions. Guidelines were excluded if they were identified as consensus statements, position statements, reporting standards, and training standards or guidelines. After exclusion criteria were applied, the two researchers scored each of the remaining clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using a prespecified abstraction Google form that reflected the RIGHT statement checklist (22 criteria; 35 items inclusive of subset questions). Each item on the abstraction form consisted of a "yes/no" option; each item on the RIGHT checklist was recorded as "yes" if it was included in the guideline and "no" if it was not. Each checklist item was weighed equally. Partial adherence to checklist items was recorded as "no." Data were extracted into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation) for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The initial search results yielded 129 CPGs in the following areas: 13 of the guidelines were in the field of interventional oncology; 16 in neurovascular disorders; five in nonvascular interventions; four in pediatrics; 25 in peripheral, arterial, and aortic disease; one in cardiac; one in portal and mesenteric vascular disease; 37 in practice development and safety; three in spine and musculoskeletal disorders; 14 in venous disease; five in renal failure/hemodialysis; and five in women's health. Of the 46 guidelines deemed eligible for evaluation by the RIGHT checklist, 12 of the checklist items showed less than 25% adherence and 13 showed more than 75% adherence. Of 35 individual RIGHT statement checklist items, adherence was found for a mean (SD) of 22.9 items (16.3). The median number of items with adherence was 21 (interquartile range, 7.5-38). CONCLUSION: The quality of reporting in interventional radiology guidelines is lacking in several key areas, including whether patient preferences were considered, whether costs and resources were considered, the strength of the recommendations, and the certainty of the body of evidence. Poor adherence to the RIGHT statement checklist in these guidelines reveals many areas for improvement in guideline reporting.

Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: It is predicted that erectile dysfunction will affect around 322 million men worldwide by 2025. Because of the large volume of literature on the topic, physicians often turn to systematic reviews and meta-analyses-and particularly abstracts of such articles-for clinical guidance. Thus, it is crucial that findings are not misrepresented in abstracts. In this study, we evaluated the use of spin (ie, the misreporting of study findings by overstating or selectively reporting efficacy results, minimizing harms, or making unwarranted clinical recommendations) in the abstracts of systematic reviews on erectile dysfunction. METHODS: A search strategy was developed using the MEDLINE and Embase databases to retrieve systematic reviews focused on treatments for erectile dysfunction. 2 investigators independently screened the titles and abstracts from the reviews for study inclusion. Investigators analyzed the included systematic reviews for 9 of the most severe types of spin using a previously developed classification scheme and rated them for methodological quality using the revised A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) in a masked, duplicate manner. Study characteristics for each review were also extracted in duplicate. RESULTS: Our search returned 2,224 articles, of which 102 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the final analysis. A total of 31.4% (32/102) of systematic reviews contained spin. 8 types of spin were identified in our sample. Type 3 (selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes) and type 5 (conclusion claims beneficial effect despite high risk of bias) were the most common types of spin, each occurring in 10.8% (11/102) of abstracts. There was no significant association between the presence of spin and the extracted study characteristics or methodological quality. CONCLUSION: Spin was present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses covering erectile dysfunction treatments. Steps should be taken to improve the reporting quality of abstracts on erectile dysfunction treatment. Reddy AK, Lulkovich K, Ottwell R, et al. Evaluation of Spin in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Focused on Treatments of Erectile Dysfunction: A Cross-sectional Analysis. Sex Med 2020;9:100284.