BackgroundTitles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called “spin”. In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin.MethodsEligibility (...) criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of “spin” related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups.DiscussionWe expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. (shrink)

The aim of this study was to explore stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of an Automatic Milking System (AMS) to sustainable development of organic dairy production in Denmark and the Netherlands. In addition, reasons for the current difference in AMS use on organic dairy farms between both countries were explored. To answer above mentioned aims, farmers and advisors in both countries were interviewed using a focus group approach. Questions of the interviews were based on a literature review on sustainability issues (...) affected by introduction of AMS. Participants expressed no moral problems regarding AMS use. They, however, pointed out uncertainty about the economic gain, difficulties with grazing, adaptation problems to technology, and image problems towards consumers. The latter results from a reduction in grazing time affecting both animal welfare and product quality. The participants did not recognize eutrophication, as result of high stocking density on farmstead lots, as a problem caused by AMS. The milk quality problem related to AMS use, although acknowledged as crucial towards consumers, was not prioritized very highly, especially not by the farmers in both countries. All groups were, however, unanimous in their perception of how important image was as far as the consumers are concerned. The perception analysis revealed that Dutch participants were more concerned about the economic payoff of AMS use, and showed more reluctance towards enlargement than Danish ones. In addition, they acknowledged the small-scale naturalness of organic production. These differences in perception could possibly explain observed differences in AMS use in organic dairy production between Denmark and the Netherlands. (shrink)

The aim of this study was to explore stakeholder perceptions of the contribution of an Automatic Milking System (AMS) to sustainable development of organic dairy production in Denmark and the Netherlands. In addition, reasons for the current difference in AMS use on organic dairy farms between both countries were explored. To answer above mentioned aims, farmers and advisors in both countries were interviewed using a focus group approach. Questions of the interviews were based on a literature review on sustainability issues (...) affected by introduction of AMS. Participants expressed no moral problems regarding AMS use. They, however, pointed out uncertainty about the economic gain, difficulties with grazing, adaptation problems to technology, and image problems towards consumers. The latter results from a reduction in grazing time affecting both animal welfare and product quality. The participants did not recognize eutrophication, as result of high stocking density on farmstead lots, as a problem caused by AMS. The milk quality problem related to AMS use, although acknowledged as crucial towards consumers, was not prioritized very highly, especially not by the farmers in both countries. All groups were, however, unanimous in their perception of how important image was as far as the consumers are concerned. The perception analysis revealed that Dutch participants were more concerned about the economic payoff of AMS use, and showed more reluctance towards enlargement than Danish ones. In addition, they acknowledged the small-scale naturalness of organic production. These differences in perception could possibly explain observed differences in AMS use in organic dairy production between Denmark and the Netherlands. (shrink)

The results of an empirical study into the perceptions of “hands-on” experts concerning the welfare of (non-human) animals in traveling circuses in the Netherlands are presented. A qualitative approach, based on in-depth conversations with trainers/performers, former trainers/performers, veterinarians, and an owner of an animal shelter, conveyed several patterns in the contextual construction of perceptions and the use of dissonance reduction strategies. Perceptions were analyzed with the help of the Symbolic Convergence Theory and the model of the frame of reference, consisting (...) of knowledge, convictions, values, norms, and interests. The study shows that the debate regarding animals in circuses in the Netherlands is centered on the level of welfare that is required; the importance of animal welfare is not disputed. Arguments that were used differed according to the respondents’ specific backgrounds and can be placed on a gradient ranging from the conviction that the welfare of animals in circuses is sufficiently warranted and both human and animal enjoy the performance (right end), to the conviction that animal welfare in circuses is negative, combined with the idea that the goal of entertaining people does not outweigh that (left end). The study confirms that perceptions reflect people’s contexts, though the variety in scopes suggests that the (inter)relations between people and their context are complex in nature. Evidence of cognitive dissonance was abundant. Coping strategies were found to be used more by respondents towards the right end of the gradient, suggesting that those respondents experience more ambivalence. This encountered pattern of association between position on the gradient and frequency of dissonance reduction strategies calls for further research on the type of ambivalent feelings experienced. The authors argue that, to come to an agreement about the welfare of animals in circuses, including the way this welfare should be guaranteed, stakeholders from different contexts need to engage in a dialogue in which a distance is taken from right/wrong-schemes and that starts from acceptance of dilemmas and ambiguity. (shrink)

The results of an empirical study into the perceptions of “hands-on” experts concerning the welfare of (non-human) animals in traveling circuses in the Netherlands are presented. A qualitative approach, based on in-depth conversations with trainers/performers, former trainers/performers, veterinarians, and an owner of an animal shelter, conveyed several patterns in the contextual construction of perceptions and the use of dissonance reduction strategies. Perceptions were analyzed with the help of the Symbolic Convergence Theory and the model of the frame of reference, consisting (...) of knowledge, convictions, values, norms, and interests. The study shows that the debate regarding animals in circuses in the Netherlands is centered on the level of welfare that is required; the importance of animal welfare is not disputed. Arguments that were used differed according to the respondents’ specific backgrounds and can be placed on a gradient ranging from the conviction that the welfare of animals in circuses is sufficiently warranted and both human and animal enjoy the performance (right end), to the conviction that animal welfare in circuses is negative, combined with the idea that the goal of entertaining people does not outweigh that (left end). The study confirms that perceptions reflect people’s contexts, though the variety in scopes suggests that the (inter)relations between people and their context are complex in nature. Evidence of cognitive dissonance was abundant. Coping strategies were found to be used more by respondents towards the right end of the gradient, suggesting that those respondents experience more ambivalence. This encountered pattern of association between position on the gradient and frequency of dissonance reduction strategies calls for further research on the type of ambivalent feelings experienced. The authors argue that, to come to an agreement about the welfare of animals in circuses, including the way this welfare should be guaranteed, stakeholders from different contexts need to engage in a dialogue in which a distance is taken from right/wrong-schemes and that starts from acceptance of dilemmas and ambiguity. (shrink)