# Ninety‐Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta‐Research Review

## TL;DR

This study found that 97% of clinical trial abstracts on robotic interventions in physiotherapy contain misleading information, often omitting negative results or overemphasizing non-significant findings.

## Contribution

The study is the first to systematically assess the prevalence of abstract spin in robotic physiotherapy trials, revealing a high rate of misleading reporting.

## Key findings

- 97% of trials had at least one instance of abstract spin.
- 90% of abstracts failed to mention adverse events.
- 77% overenthusiastically interpreted non-significant primary outcomes.

## Abstract

Abstract spin involves misrepresenting or misreporting study findings in the abstract of an article. The abstract is the most easily accessible part of the article and may determine if an article is read, purchased or the findings are implemented into practice. Trials using new technologies, such as robotics, may be particularly vulnerable to spin due to the high costs associated with research and development.

To identify and assess abstract spin in physiotherapy clinical trials investigating robotic interventions.

Meta‐research review.

We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) in August 2024 for two‐armed clinical trials investigating robotic interventions compared to nonrobotic interventions, in any patient population. Article screening and data extraction were performed by two people independently. Quality assessment was performed using the PEDro scale with PEDro scores ≥ 6 deemed high quality. Abstract spin was assessed by two independent raters using a 7‐item checklist. Spin items were scored “present,” “not present” or “not applicable.” Data were presented as counts and percentages.

We included 160 trials, of which 95% were in neurological physiotherapy and 61% of trials were high quality. Almost all trials (97%) contained at least one item of spin. Most often abstracts failed to mention adverse events (90%) or overenthusiastically interpretated non‐significant (primary) outcomes (77%). One percent of abstracts clearly omitted negative primary outcomes, and 23% of abstracts recommended treatments without clinically important effects on the primary outcomes. These low spin percentages were due to many trials not reporting any negative finding and trials not providing a clinical recommendation in the abstract.

Ninety‐seven percent of abstracts in trials investigating robotic interventions in physiotherapy contained spin. Academic journals should be conscious of the high prevalence of abstract spin in robotic trials and consider implementing stricter author guidelines or peer‐review practices to ensure abstracts truly reflect the study findings.