title: Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Previous studies indicate that the interpretation of trial results can be distorted by authors of published reports.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To identify the nature and frequency of distorted presentation or "spin" (ie, specific reporting strategies, whatever their motive, to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a statistically nonsignificant difference for the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statistically nonsignificant results) in published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes.
  
  
  METHODS
  March 2007 search of MEDLINE via PubMed using the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy to identify reports of RCTs published in December 2006.
  
  
  METHODS
  Articles were included if they were parallel-group RCTs with a clearly identified primary outcome showing statistically nonsignificant results (ie, P > or = .05).
  
  
  METHODS
  Two readers appraised each selected article using a pretested, standardized data abstraction form developed in a pilot test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  From the 616 published reports of RCTs examined, 72 were eligible and appraised. The title was reported with spin in 13 articles (18.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.0%-28.9%). Spin was identified in the Results and Conclusions sections of the abstracts of 27 (37.5%; 95% CI, 26.4%-49.7%) and 42 (58.3%; 95% CI, 46.1%-69.8%) reports, respectively, with the conclusions of 17 (23.6%; 95% CI, 14.4%-35.1%) focusing only on treatment effectiveness. Spin was identified in the main-text Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of 21 (29.2%; 95% CI, 19.0%-41.1%), 31 (43.1%; 95% CI, 31.4%-55.3%), and 36 (50.0%; 95% CI, 38.0%-62.0%) reports, respectively. More than 40% of the reports had spin in at least 2 of these sections in the main text.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  In this representative sample of RCTs published in 2006 with statistically nonsignificant primary outcomes, the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. isabelle.boutron@htd.aphp.fr
authors.forename: Isabelle
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Boutron
authors.forename: Susan
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Dutton
authors.forename: Philippe
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Ravaud
authors.forename: Douglas G
authors.initials: DG
authors.lastname: Altman
mesh_terms: D015982:Bias; D011643:Publishing / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016896:Treatment Outcome