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

Date of this Version

2015

Document Type

Journal Article

Grant Number

NHMRC/Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Career Development Fellowship (number: 1033038) with funding provided by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing. NHMRC Australia Fellowship No: 527500

Publication Details

Published version

Hoffmann, T. C., Walker, M. F., Langhorne, P., Eames, S., Thomas, E., & Glasziou, P. (2015). 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. BMJ Open, 5(11), 1-11.

Access the journal

2015 HERDC submission

© Copyright, The Authors, 2015

Distribution License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

ISSN

2044-6055

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.

 

This document has been peer reviewed.