The No-Spin Evidence Review
We summarize recent program evaluations and explain what the evidence really shows. More >
Latest No-Spin Evidence Report
JAMA (October 2023) published results of an RCT of Million Hearts, a federally-sponsored, nationwide pay-for-performance model designed to prevent heart attacks and strokes and reduce healthcare spending among Medicare patients. Despite the study abstract’s positive portrayal of the results, this RCT found no statistically significant effects on any of its five reported primary outcomes at the 4-5 year follow-up (related to patient health and healthcare costs).
What We Do
We provide plain-language, no-spin summaries of recent studies on “what works” in social spending. We also highlight a common problem in study reporting: Study abstracts often portray programs as effective when the study’s results don’t support such claims.
We focus on abstracts because of their central role in research communication. Many readers rely on abstracts for a study's main take-aways - due to time constraints or paywalls on full-report access - so their exaggerated claims can lead to programs being mislabeled as “evidence based” and expanded despite weak or null findings.
Each No-Spin report assigns a rating – “accurately reported,” “somewhat accurately reported,” or “not accurately reported” – based on how well the abstract reflects the study’s primary findings and notes any important limitations that could affect study validity. We explain the basis for each rating and, where needed, suggest revisions to make the abstract more accurate.
We mainly report on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because, when feasible and well-conducted, they're considered the strongest method of evaluating program effectiveness.
Learn more about our review process.
