Análise da qualidade da descrição e presença de SPIN em ensaios clínicos randomizados sobre intervenções fisioterapêuticas para disfunção temporomandibular

Abstract

Context: Clinical trials demonstrate various protocols and physiotherapeutic treatments aimed at addressing temporomandibular disorder (TMD); however, some of these studies may present inconsistencies between their abstract and full-text descriptions. Objective: To analyze the quality of description and the presence of spin in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on physiotherapeutic interventions for temporomandibular disorder by systematically searching for articles and verifying the consistency between the abstract and the complete text. Methods: This is a methodological study involving a systematic search of articles. The sample comprised RCTs focusing on non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for TMD, regardless of whether the disorder is muscular, articular, or mixed, and which include at least pain and/or mandibular range of motion as outcome measures. There was no language restriction, and studies published up to August 2025 that allowed comparative analysis between the abstract and the full text were included. In case of disagreement, a third reviewer was consulted to achieve consensus through discussion. Electronic databases used were PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PEDro, and LILACS. A search strategy developed for PubMed/Medline was adapted to each database. Two checklists were applied for study analysis: the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for abstract (CONSORT-A) to assess the quality of reporting and the consistency between abstract and full text, and the Spin Checklist to evaluate the presence and consistency of spin in both abstract and full text. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. Results: A total of 281 articles were included. Both checklists (CONSORT-A and SPIN) were applied to all articles. In the abstracts, the mean CONSORT-A score was 5.2 (1.4), and in the full texts the mean score was 10.2 (2.5), both out of a possible 15 points. The mean Spin Checklist score in abstracts was 6.39 (1.74) and in full texts 4.7 (2.96), out of a possible 7 points. Abstracts tended to present a slightly higher spin (p < 0.001), and there was substantial agreement between abstract and full text (mean kappa=0.61). Discussion: This study corroborates previous research in the health field indicating suboptimal adherence and scores on the CONSORT-A, with spin present in abstracts and/or full texts. Conclusion: The results of the present study allow us to conclude that adherence to CONSORT-A items is inadequate, compromising transparency, internal validation, and clinical applicability of research. Furthermore, spin is a widespread phenomenon in both abstracts and full texts of randomized clinical trials in dentistry and physical therapy, particularly with non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions for TMD. Clinicians should not rely solely on abstract information for clinical decision-making, and the scientific community needs to establish policies to ensure better reporting standards. Clinical Relevance: Active and rigorous implementation of CONSORT, CONSORT-A, and SPIN in research articles is urgent and indispensable.