Cargando…

Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Montgomery, Alan A, Astin, Margaret P, Peters, Tim J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21771302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-179
_version_ 1782210302537891840
author Montgomery, Alan A
Astin, Margaret P
Peters, Tim J
author_facet Montgomery, Alan A
Astin, Margaret P
Peters, Tim J
author_sort Montgomery, Alan A
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation. RESULTS: We identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials. CONCLUSIONS: Reports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3157424
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31574242011-08-18 Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review Montgomery, Alan A Astin, Margaret P Peters, Tim J Trials Review BACKGROUND: Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation. RESULTS: We identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials. CONCLUSIONS: Reports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials. BioMed Central 2011-07-19 /pmc/articles/PMC3157424/ /pubmed/21771302 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-179 Text en Copyright ©2011 Montgomery et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Montgomery, Alan A
Astin, Margaret P
Peters, Tim J
Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
title Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
title_full Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
title_fullStr Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
title_short Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
title_sort reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3157424/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21771302
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-12-179
work_keys_str_mv AT montgomeryalana reportingoffactorialtrialsofcomplexinterventionsincommunitysettingsasystematicreview
AT astinmargaretp reportingoffactorialtrialsofcomplexinterventionsincommunitysettingsasystematicreview
AT peterstimj reportingoffactorialtrialsofcomplexinterventionsincommunitysettingsasystematicreview