“Sixty percent of the time it works… every time” - or is it 80% after all? It is striking that such a high number of the abstracts of LBP systematic reviews, which are at the top of the scientific evidence pyramid, are not an accurate representation of the review’s actual findings.
On the bright side, it can be seen as one more incentive to maintain a critical perspective in the face of any presented evidence and to always try to not just skim through the abstract and draw immediate conclusions. As hard as it may be - whether it’s because of perceived lack of time or insufficient research skills - this review shows us the importance of making that extra effort.
Finally, it would be interesting to find why spin and inconsistencies were present in the abstracts: is it lack of writing skills by the authors, or purposely putting the shinier results on the big print and the real findings on the small print? Remember: “There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics”