Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature: Is evidence from randomized trials useable?

Arabella Ludemann, Emma Power, Tammy C. Hoffmann

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method: A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results: No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28% of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25% and 13% of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18%). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100% of articles); rationale (96%); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69%). Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)443-455
Number of pages13
JournalAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Volume26
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2017

Fingerprint

Speech-Language Pathology
pathology
Publications
language
Checklist
Names
evidence
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Personnel
Databases
literature

Cite this

@article{fe2b3ac3aabc448ebdf142b51a115159,
title = "Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature: Is evidence from randomized trials useable?",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method: A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results: No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28{\%} of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25{\%} and 13{\%} of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18{\%}). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100{\%} of articles); rationale (96{\%}); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69{\%}). Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.",
author = "Arabella Ludemann and Emma Power and Hoffmann, {Tammy C.}",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0035",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "443--455",
journal = "American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology",
issn = "1058-0360",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "2",

}

Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature : Is evidence from randomized trials useable? / Ludemann, Arabella; Power, Emma; Hoffmann, Tammy C.

In: American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Vol. 26, No. 2, 01.05.2017, p. 443-455.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature

T2 - Is evidence from randomized trials useable?

AU - Ludemann, Arabella

AU - Power, Emma

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy C.

PY - 2017/5/1

Y1 - 2017/5/1

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method: A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results: No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28% of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25% and 13% of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18%). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100% of articles); rationale (96%); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69%). Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method: A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results: No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28% of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25% and 13% of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18%). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100% of articles); rationale (96%); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69%). Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85019385109&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0035

DO - 10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0035

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 443

EP - 455

JO - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

JF - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

SN - 1058-0360

IS - 2

ER -