How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials?

Tiê P. Yamato, Chris G. Maher, Bruno T. Saragiotto, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Anne M. Moseley

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database. Study selection or eligibility criteria: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines. Data extraction and data synthesis: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95% confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines. Results: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23%) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75%) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality. Limitations: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013. Conclusion and implications of key findings: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)121-126
Number of pages6
JournalPhysiotherapy
Volume102
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jun 2016

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Control Groups
Information Storage and Retrieval
Checklist
Databases
Confidence Intervals

Cite this

Yamato, Tiê P. ; Maher, Chris G. ; Saragiotto, Bruno T. ; Hoffmann, Tammy C. ; Moseley, Anne M. / How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials?. In: Physiotherapy. 2016 ; Vol. 102, No. 2. pp. 121-126.
@article{0ba1958f71a3410c94b9da1b9d89a0aa,
title = "How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials?",
abstract = "Background: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database. Study selection or eligibility criteria: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines. Data extraction and data synthesis: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95{\%} confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines. Results: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23{\%}) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75{\%}) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality. Limitations: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013. Conclusion and implications of key findings: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials.",
author = "Yamato, {Ti{\^e} P.} and Maher, {Chris G.} and Saragiotto, {Bruno T.} and Hoffmann, {Tammy C.} and Moseley, {Anne M.}",
year = "2016",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.physio.2016.03.001",
language = "English",
volume = "102",
pages = "121--126",
journal = "Physiotherapy",
issn = "0031-9406",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "2",

}

How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials? / Yamato, Tiê P.; Maher, Chris G.; Saragiotto, Bruno T.; Hoffmann, Tammy C.; Moseley, Anne M.

In: Physiotherapy, Vol. 102, No. 2, 01.06.2016, p. 121-126.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - How completely are physiotherapy interventions described in reports of randomised trials?

AU - Yamato, Tiê P.

AU - Maher, Chris G.

AU - Saragiotto, Bruno T.

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy C.

AU - Moseley, Anne M.

PY - 2016/6/1

Y1 - 2016/6/1

N2 - Background: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database. Study selection or eligibility criteria: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines. Data extraction and data synthesis: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95% confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines. Results: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23%) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75%) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality. Limitations: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013. Conclusion and implications of key findings: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials.

AB - Background: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions. Objectives: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data sources: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database. Study selection or eligibility criteria: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines. Data extraction and data synthesis: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95% confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines. Results: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23%) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75%) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality. Limitations: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013. Conclusion and implications of key findings: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84962316007&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.physio.2016.03.001

DO - 10.1016/j.physio.2016.03.001

M3 - Review article

VL - 102

SP - 121

EP - 126

JO - Physiotherapy

JF - Physiotherapy

SN - 0031-9406

IS - 2

ER -