What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: Analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions

Tammy C. Hoffmann, Marion F. Walker, Peter Langhorne, Sally Eames, Emma Thomas, Paul Glasziou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To assess, in a sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, the completeness of intervention reporting, identify the most frequently missing elements, and assess review authors' use of and beliefs about providing intervention information.

Design: Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors.

Data sources and study selection: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for potentially eligible systematic reviews and a random sample of these assessed for eligibility until 60 (30 Cochrane, 30 non-Cochrane) eligible reviews were identified.

Data collection: In each review, the completeness of the intervention description in each eligible trial (n = 568) was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. All review authors (n = 46) were invited to complete a survey.

Results: Most reviews were missing intervention information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews, respectively). Items that scored better, but were still incomplete for the majority of reviews, were: 'when and how much' (in 31% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 57% of reviews, adequate for some trials); intervention mode (in 22% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 38%, adequate for some trials); and location (in 19% of reviews, adequate for all trials). Of the 33 (71%) authors who responded, 58% reported having further intervention information but not including it, and 70% tried to obtain information.

Conclusions: Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors.

Original languageEnglish
Article number009051
Number of pages10
JournalBMJ Open
Volume5
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

Names
Stroke
Information Storage and Retrieval
Checklist
PubMed
Libraries
Surveys and Questionnaires

Cite this

@article{2896ebec01c042d6831d30d19d553531,
title = "What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: Analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions",
abstract = "Objective: To assess, in a sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, the completeness of intervention reporting, identify the most frequently missing elements, and assess review authors' use of and beliefs about providing intervention information.Design: Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors.Data sources and study selection: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for potentially eligible systematic reviews and a random sample of these assessed for eligibility until 60 (30 Cochrane, 30 non-Cochrane) eligible reviews were identified.Data collection: In each review, the completeness of the intervention description in each eligible trial (n = 568) was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. All review authors (n = 46) were invited to complete a survey.Results: Most reviews were missing intervention information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97{\%}, 90{\%}, 88{\%}, 83{\%} and 83{\%} of reviews, respectively). Items that scored better, but were still incomplete for the majority of reviews, were: 'when and how much' (in 31{\%} of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 57{\%} of reviews, adequate for some trials); intervention mode (in 22{\%} of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 38{\%}, adequate for some trials); and location (in 19{\%} of reviews, adequate for all trials). Of the 33 (71{\%}) authors who responded, 58{\%} reported having further intervention information but not including it, and 70{\%} tried to obtain information.Conclusions: Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors.",
author = "Hoffmann, {Tammy C.} and Walker, {Marion F.} and Peter Langhorne and Sally Eames and Emma Thomas and Paul Glasziou",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "BMJ Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "11",

}

What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews : Analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. / Hoffmann, Tammy C.; Walker, Marion F.; Langhorne, Peter; Eames, Sally; Thomas, Emma; Glasziou, Paul.

In: BMJ Open, Vol. 5, No. 11, 009051, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews

T2 - Analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy C.

AU - Walker, Marion F.

AU - Langhorne, Peter

AU - Eames, Sally

AU - Thomas, Emma

AU - Glasziou, Paul

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Objective: To assess, in a sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, the completeness of intervention reporting, identify the most frequently missing elements, and assess review authors' use of and beliefs about providing intervention information.Design: Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors.Data sources and study selection: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for potentially eligible systematic reviews and a random sample of these assessed for eligibility until 60 (30 Cochrane, 30 non-Cochrane) eligible reviews were identified.Data collection: In each review, the completeness of the intervention description in each eligible trial (n = 568) was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. All review authors (n = 46) were invited to complete a survey.Results: Most reviews were missing intervention information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews, respectively). Items that scored better, but were still incomplete for the majority of reviews, were: 'when and how much' (in 31% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 57% of reviews, adequate for some trials); intervention mode (in 22% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 38%, adequate for some trials); and location (in 19% of reviews, adequate for all trials). Of the 33 (71%) authors who responded, 58% reported having further intervention information but not including it, and 70% tried to obtain information.Conclusions: Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors.

AB - Objective: To assess, in a sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological interventions, the completeness of intervention reporting, identify the most frequently missing elements, and assess review authors' use of and beliefs about providing intervention information.Design: Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors.Data sources and study selection: The Cochrane Library and PubMed were searched for potentially eligible systematic reviews and a random sample of these assessed for eligibility until 60 (30 Cochrane, 30 non-Cochrane) eligible reviews were identified.Data collection: In each review, the completeness of the intervention description in each eligible trial (n = 568) was assessed by 2 independent raters using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. All review authors (n = 46) were invited to complete a survey.Results: Most reviews were missing intervention information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews, respectively). Items that scored better, but were still incomplete for the majority of reviews, were: 'when and how much' (in 31% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 57% of reviews, adequate for some trials); intervention mode (in 22% of reviews, adequate for all trials; in 38%, adequate for some trials); and location (in 19% of reviews, adequate for all trials). Of the 33 (71%) authors who responded, 58% reported having further intervention information but not including it, and 70% tried to obtain information.Conclusions: Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84956909280&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051

DO - 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051

M3 - Article

VL - 5

JO - BMJ Open

JF - BMJ Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 11

M1 - 009051

ER -