The impact of spin on the interpretations of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in the field of clinical psychology: an online experiment

Abstract Objectives: to assess the impact of spin on the interpretation of the results and conclusions reported in abstracts describing randomized controlled trials investigating behavioural treatments for depression. Methods: we selected 10 abstracts from published randomized controlled trials investigating behavioural treatments for depression that claimed a beneficial treatment effect despite one or more nonsignificant primary outcomes. We rewrote the abstracts to create a spinless version of each of the 10 abstracts. We recruited clinicians and clinical researchers via email invitations. Participants were randomly assigned to read either the ‘with spin’ (n = 91) or ‘without spin’ (n = 99) version of an abstract and answered questions about the study described in the abstract. The primary outcome was the participants’ perception of the effectiveness of the treatment proposed in the abstract. Results: the Bayesian analysis showed no convincing support for an effect of spin on the participants’ perception of the treatment effectiveness (posterior mean = 0.53, s.e. = 0.27, 95% CI [−0.01, 1.07]; posterior mode = 0.54, 95% highest density interval [−0.02, 1.06]). However, following the Bayes factor of 1.8, no convincing support for a null effect was found either. Conclusion: presence of spin in abstracts did not convincingly impact clinicians’ and clinical researchers’ perception of the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Royal Society Open Science
Published
2026-01-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.251174
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The impact of spin on the interpretations of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in the field of clinical psychology: an online experiment

Marjan Bakker, Tijn G. L. van Hoesel
Royal Society Open Science
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
article

The impact of spin on the interpretations of abstracts of randomized controlled trials in the field of clinical psychology: an online experiment

Marjan Bakker, Tijn G. L. van Hoesel
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objectives: to assess the impact of spin on the interpretation of the results and conclusions reported in abstracts describing randomized controlled trials investigating behavioural treatments for depression. Methods: we selected 10 abstracts from published randomized controlled trials investigating behavioural treatments for depression that claimed a beneficial treatment effect despite one or more nonsignificant primary outcomes. We rewrote the abstracts to create a spinless version of each of the 10 abstracts. We recruited clinicians and clinical researchers via email invitations. Participants were randomly assigned to read either the ‘with spin’ (n = 91) or ‘without spin’ (n = 99) version of an abstract and answered questions about the study described in the abstract. The primary outcome was the participants’ perception of the effectiveness of the treatment proposed in the abstract. Results: the Bayesian analysis showed no convincing support for an effect of spin on the participants’ perception of the treatment effectiveness (posterior mean = 0.53, s.e. = 0.27, 95% CI [−0.01, 1.07]; posterior mode = 0.54, 95% highest density interval [−0.02, 1.06]). However, following the Bayes factor of 1.8, no convincing support for a null effect was found either. Conclusion: presence of spin in abstracts did not convincingly impact clinicians’ and clinical researchers’ perception of the effectiveness of the proposed treatment.

Royal Society Open ScienceVol. 13(1)
Tilburg University (NL)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 97%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.