Cargando…

Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials

Objectives To evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details. Design Analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacolo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hoffmann, Tammy C, Erueti, Chrissy, Glasziou, Paul P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24021722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3755
_version_ 1782283755968266240
author Hoffmann, Tammy C
Erueti, Chrissy
Glasziou, Paul P
author_facet Hoffmann, Tammy C
Erueti, Chrissy
Glasziou, Paul P
author_sort Hoffmann, Tammy C
collection PubMed
description Objectives To evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details. Design Analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions. Data sources and study selection All reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria. Data collection Using an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed. Results Of 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the “intervention materials” (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning. Conclusions Missing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3768250
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37682502013-09-12 Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials Hoffmann, Tammy C Erueti, Chrissy Glasziou, Paul P BMJ Research Objectives To evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details. Design Analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions. Data sources and study selection All reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria. Data collection Using an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed. Results Of 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the “intervention materials” (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning. Conclusions Missing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. 2013-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC3768250/ /pubmed/24021722 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3755 Text en © Hoffmann et al 2013 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/.
spellingShingle Research
Hoffmann, Tammy C
Erueti, Chrissy
Glasziou, Paul P
Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
title Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
title_full Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
title_fullStr Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
title_full_unstemmed Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
title_short Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
title_sort poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3768250/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24021722
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3755
work_keys_str_mv AT hoffmanntammyc poordescriptionofnonpharmacologicalinterventionsanalysisofconsecutivesampleofrandomisedtrials
AT eruetichrissy poordescriptionofnonpharmacologicalinterventionsanalysisofconsecutivesampleofrandomisedtrials
AT glaszioupaulp poordescriptionofnonpharmacologicalinterventionsanalysisofconsecutivesampleofrandomisedtrials