Prevalence of Reporting Bias in Abstracts of Meniscal Transplant Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Increased Association With Study Age: A Systematic Review

Background: Spin is a form of reporting bias in which study results are presented more favorably than justified by the data. It often appears in abstracts and conclusions, where selective emphasis or misleading interpretation can distort readers' understanding and influence clinical decision-making. Purpose: To identify the prevalence of spin, a reporting bias in which authors overemphasize beneficial or significant results and underreport weaknesses, in abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT), as well as to investigate associations between spin and study characteristics. Study Design: Systematic review, Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the PubMed, Web of Science, and Medscape databases were searched using the terms “menisc * transplant” OR “menisc * transplantation.” Studies were included if they were systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in the English language and in peer-reviewed journals. Studies excluded were case reports, case series, animal or cadaveric studies, studies not published in the English language, and studies without an accessible full text. Data extracted included year of publication, journal, level of evidence, funding, Scopus CiteScore, and Clarivate impact factor. Abstracts were then analyzed for the 15 most common types of spin. Statistical analyses were performed using the Fisher exact test and linear regression with significance set at a P value