Cargando…

The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice. SETTING: RCTs published...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Douet, Lisa, Milne, Ruairidh, Anstee, Sydney, Habens, Fay, Young, Amanda, Wright, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384896
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003713
_version_ 1782300963698114560
author Douet, Lisa
Milne, Ruairidh
Anstee, Sydney
Habens, Fay
Young, Amanda
Wright, David
author_facet Douet, Lisa
Milne, Ruairidh
Anstee, Sydney
Habens, Fay
Young, Amanda
Wright, David
author_sort Douet, Lisa
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice. SETTING: RCTs published in the HTA journal. PARTICIPANTS: 98 RCTs published in the HTA journal up to March 2011. Completeness of the intervention description was assessed independently by two researchers using a checklist, which included assessments of participants, intensity, schedule, materials and settings. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (primary outcome measure). The proportion of drug trials versus psychological and non-drug trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (secondary outcome measures). RESULTS: Components of the intervention description were missing in 68/98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the journals having an adequate description. When looking at individual intervention types, drug intervention descriptions were more complete than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness, respectively, although this was not significant statistically. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although again these differences were not significant statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring the replicability of study interventions is an essential part of adding value in research. All those publishing clinical trial data need to ensure transparency and completeness in the reporting of interventions to ensure that study interventions can be replicated.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3902303
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39023032014-01-27 The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study Douet, Lisa Milne, Ruairidh Anstee, Sydney Habens, Fay Young, Amanda Wright, David BMJ Open Evidence Based Practice OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess whether National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA)-funded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the HTA journal were described in sufficient detail to replicate in practice. SETTING: RCTs published in the HTA journal. PARTICIPANTS: 98 RCTs published in the HTA journal up to March 2011. Completeness of the intervention description was assessed independently by two researchers using a checklist, which included assessments of participants, intensity, schedule, materials and settings. Disagreements in scoring were discussed in the team; differences were then explored and resolved. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (primary outcome measure). The proportion of drug trials versus psychological and non-drug trials rated as having a complete description of the intervention (secondary outcome measures). RESULTS: Components of the intervention description were missing in 68/98 (69.4%) reports. Baseline characteristics and descriptions of settings had the highest levels of completeness with over 90% of reports complete. Reports were less complete on patient information with 58.2% of the journals having an adequate description. When looking at individual intervention types, drug intervention descriptions were more complete than non-drug interventions with 33.3% and 30.6% levels of completeness, respectively, although this was not significant statistically. Only 27.3% of RCTs with psychological interventions were deemed to be complete, although again these differences were not significant statistically. CONCLUSIONS: Ensuring the replicability of study interventions is an essential part of adding value in research. All those publishing clinical trial data need to ensure transparency and completeness in the reporting of interventions to ensure that study interventions can be replicated. BMJ Publishing Group 2014-01-02 /pmc/articles/PMC3902303/ /pubmed/24384896 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003713 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions 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 Evidence Based Practice
Douet, Lisa
Milne, Ruairidh
Anstee, Sydney
Habens, Fay
Young, Amanda
Wright, David
The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
title The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
title_full The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
title_fullStr The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
title_full_unstemmed The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
title_short The completeness of intervention descriptions in published National Institute of Health Research HTA-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
title_sort completeness of intervention descriptions in published national institute of health research hta-funded trials: a cross-sectional study
topic Evidence Based Practice
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902303/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24384896
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003713
work_keys_str_mv AT douetlisa thecompletenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT milneruairidh thecompletenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT ansteesydney thecompletenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT habensfay thecompletenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT youngamanda thecompletenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT wrightdavid thecompletenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT douetlisa completenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT milneruairidh completenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT ansteesydney completenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT habensfay completenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT youngamanda completenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy
AT wrightdavid completenessofinterventiondescriptionsinpublishednationalinstituteofhealthresearchhtafundedtrialsacrosssectionalstudy