More Than Half of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Abstracts on Platelet-Rich Plasma in Meniscal Repair Demonstrate Spin Bias

Background Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has increasingly been investigated as a biologic augmentation strategy for meniscal repair, but its clinical benefit remains debated. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) are commonly used to guide clinical interpretation, but their abstracts may be affected by spin bias, in which findings are presented or interpreted in a manner that may make an intervention appear more favourable than warranted. Purpose To evaluate spin in the abstracts of SRMAs on meniscal repair surgery with PRP. Study design: Systematic review; Level of Evidence, 4. Methods PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 5, 2026, for SRMAs evaluating PRP use in meniscal repair surgery. Eligible reviews reported at least one clinical outcome related to PRP augmentation in meniscal repair. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed abstract spin using the 15-type Yavchitz classification system, and evaluated methodological quality using AMSTAR-2. Study characteristics were compared between reviews with and without the two most prevalent spin types using Mann-Whitney U tests or independent-samples t tests, as appropriate. Results Thirteen studies were included. Spin bias was identified in 7 of 13 abstracts (53.8%). The most common spin category was misleading reporting, while the most common spin types were Type 5 (n = 6, 46.2%), defined as conclusions claiming a beneficial effect despite high risk of bias in included primary studies, and Type 11 (n = 4, 30.8%), defined as conclusions selectively focusing on statistically significant efficacy outcomes. Studies with and without Type 5 or Type 11 spin did not significantly differ in journal impact factor, citation density, number of included studies, number of included knees, total citations, or number of authors. AMSTAR-2 confidence was rated as moderate in 2 studies (15.4%) and critically low in 11 studies (84.6%). Conclusion Spin bias was present in over half of the abstracts of reviews evaluating PRP in meniscal repair, with Type 5 and Type 11 spin being most prevalent. Most included studies were rated as critically low confidence according to AMSTAR-2, suggesting that abstract conclusions regarding PRP in meniscal repair should be interpreted cautiously.