SynthesisPloS one2013
Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
43 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review identifying effective teaching methods and their combinations for increasing empathy in physicians: pairwise and network meta-analysis.BMC medical education · 2025Pooled it
- Promising behavior change techniques for climate-friendly behavior change - a systematic review.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological interventions to improve mental wellbeing.Nature human behaviour · 2021Pooled it
- CONSORT-SPI 2018 Explanation and Elaboration: guidance for reporting social and psychological intervention trials.Trials · 2018Guideline
- Rating the quality of a body of evidence on the effectiveness of health and social interventions: A systematic review and mapping of evidence domains.Research synthesis methods · 2018Pooled it
- Portion, package or tableware size for changing selection and consumption of food, alcohol and tobacco.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Pooled it
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of peer support for people with severe mental illness.BMC psychiatry · 2014Pooled it
- Preventive home visits for mortality, morbidity, and institutionalization in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2014Pooled it
- Media-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and behavioural therapy (self-help) for anxiety disorders in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2013Pooled it
- Community-wide intervention and population-level physical activity: a 5-year cluster randomized trial.International journal of epidemiology · 2018Trial
- Metric Quality of Intelligence Tests in Spain: Evidence from 13 National Test Commission Reviews.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Guidance for protocol content and reporting of dog-assisted interventions in randomised controlled trials: explanation and elaboration of the SPIRIT 2025 and CONSORT 2025 extensions.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Access to treatment protocols and manuals for evidence-based psychological interventions for severe mental disorders: a survey of randomised trials included in network meta-analyses.BMJ mental health · 2025Article
- Diversity, equity, and inclusivity in observational ambulatory assessment: Recommendations from two decades of Electronically Activated Recorder (EAR) research.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
- Article
- A Systematic Review to Inform the Development of a Reporting Guideline for Concept Mapping Research.Methods and protocols · 2023Review
- Open Science Standards at Journals that Inform Evidence-Based Policy.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2023Review
- Perspectives on the application of CONSORT guidelines to randomised controlled trials in nutrition.European journal of nutrition · 2023Article
- The influence of evidence-based program registry websites for dissemination of evidence-based interventions in behavioral healthcare.Evaluation and program planning · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials. OBJECTIVE/
designWe conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials. DATA SOURCES: (1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.
results(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."
conclusionExisting reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.