Table 2.

Frequency of Each Spin Category and Type in Reviewed Studies

Type	Spin Description	Abstracts w/ Spin	%
1	The conclusion formulates recommendations for clinical practice not supported by the findings	2/15	13.3%
2	The title claims or suggests a beneficial effect of the experimental intervention not supported by the findings	1/15	6.7%
3	Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention	5/15	33.3%
4	The conclusion claims safety based on nonstatistically significant results with a wide confidence interval	2/15	13.3%
5	The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies	5/15	33.3%
6	Selective reporting of or overemphasis on harm outcomes or analysis favoring the safety of the experimental intervention	0/15	0.0%
7	The conclusion extrapolates the review findings to a different intervention (e.g., claiming efficacy of one specific intervention although the review covered a class of several interventions).	0/15	0.0%
8	Conclusion extrapolates the review's findings from a surrogate marker or a specific outcome to the global improvement of the disease	1/15	6.7%
9	Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias	3/15	20.0%
10	Authors hide or do not present any conflict of interest	5/15	33.3%
11	Conclusion focuses selectively on statistically significant efficacy outcome	5/15	33.3%
12	Conclusion claims equivalence or comparable effectiveness for nonstatistically significant results with a wide confidence interval	3/15	20.0%
13	Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention	6/15	40.0%
14	Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates	10/15	66.7%
15	Conclusion extrapolates the review's findings to a different population or setting	3/15	20.0%