The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

中文翻译：

---

同行评审减少了 PCORI 研究报告中的旋转

以患者为中心的结果研究所 (PCORI) 有义务进行同行评审并公开发布所有资助项目的“最终研究报告”。PCORI 同行评审强调遵守 PCORI 的方法标准和道德科学传播原则。在同行评审过程中，评审员和编辑力求确保客观地呈现结果并对其进行适当的解释，例如，没有自旋。两名独立评估员评估了发送给作者的 PCORI 同行评审反馈。我们计算了同行评审期间确定自旋的报告比例，以及确定的自旋类型。我们纳入了 2018 年 4 月之前提交的报告，其中至少有一篇相关的期刊文章。然后，相同的评分者评估作者是否处理了审稿人关于旋转的评论。评估者还评估了 PCORI 同行评审期间确定的旋转是否出现在相关期刊文章中。我们纳入了 64 个 PCORI 资助的项目。同行评审员或编辑在 55/64 (86%) 提交的研究报告中确定了自旋。旋转类型包括报告偏差（46/55；84%）、不恰当的解释（40/55；73%）、不恰当的结果外推（15/55；27%）和不恰当的因果关系归因（5/55；9 %）。作者讨论了与 47/55 (85%) 报告相关的旋转评论。在 110 篇相关期刊文章中，PCORI 关于自旋的评论可能适用于 44/110 (40%) 的文章，其中 27/44 (61%) 包含与 PCORI 研究报告中确定的相同自旋。在 PCORI 同行评审之前和之后接受的文章中，带有旋转的文章比例相似（63% 对 58%）。正如自旋在期刊文章和新闻稿中很常见，我们发现提交给 PCORI 的大多数报告都包含自旋。虽然在资助者的同行评审过程中大多数自旋得到缓解，但我们没有发现任何证据表明对 PCORI 报告的审查会影响期刊文章中的自旋。资助者可以探索旨在减少他们支持的已发表研究文章中的旋转的干预措施。