A conceptual and methodological exploration of spin and related reporting distortions in dental research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Spin has been increasingly investigated in health research, including dentistry, yet how dental researchers conceptualize and assess spin remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe how the indexed dental literature conceptualizes and assesses spin and related reporting distortions. METHODS: This scoping review was reported according to PRISMA-ScR. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched, without language or date restrictions, for quantitative studies that defined and assessed spin or related reporting distortions in dental research. Narrative reviews, scoping reviews, grey literature, and studies without an explicit methodological assessment were excluded. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data extraction, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. Conceptual definitions, terminology, assessment frameworks, and methodological characteristics were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Thirty studies were included, most using a meta-research design (n = 24; 80.0%). Spin was the most frequently investigated outcome (n= 16; 53.3%), followed by selective outcome reporting, a related reporting distortion (n= 7; 23.3%). Considerable conceptual and methodological heterogeneity was observed across studies and study designs evaluated. Randomized controlled trials were the most frequently evaluated publication type (n = 16; 53.3%), followed by systematic reviews or meta-analyses (n = 8; 26.7%). Assessments targeted abstracts, article-level evaluations, multiple publication sections, or protocol/registration-publication comparisons. Boutron- (n = 9; 30.0%), Yavchitz- (n = 5; 16.7%), and Chan-derived (n = 7; 23.3%) frameworks were most frequently applied. CONCLUSIONS: Dental literature shows substantial heterogeneity in the conceptualization and assessment of spin and related reporting distortions. In dentistry, greater conceptual clarity, standardized assessment methods, and improved reporting transparency are needed to strengthen reproducibility and comparability.