ArticleBMJ open2015
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.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 4 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying the effective behaviour change techniques in nutrition and physical activity interventions for the treatment of overweight/obesity in post-treatment breast cancer survivors: a systematic review.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Pooled it
- Equine-assisted interventions for veterans with service-related health conditions: a systematic mapping review.Military Medical Research · 2019Pooled it
- How should long-term free-living physical activity be targeted after stroke? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2018Pooled it
- The quality of reports of medical and public health research from Palestinian institutions: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Commentary on Kraiss et al.: Read the label - improving the applicability of systematic reviews by coding and analysis of intervention elements.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2023Article
- The SUPER reporting guideline suggested for reporting of surgical technique: explanation and elaboration.Gland surgery · 2023Article
- Defining, quantifying, and reporting intensity, dose, and dosage of neurorehabilitative interventions focusing on motor outcomes.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2023Article
- Systematic description of an interdisciplinary multimodal pain treatment programme for patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain, using the TIDieR checklist.BMC research notes · 2022Article
- A feasibility, acceptability and fidelity study of a multifaceted behaviour change intervention targeting free-living physical activity and sedentary behaviour in community dwelling adult stroke survivors.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2020Article
- Description of the CARE4STROKE programme: A caregiver-mediated exercises intervention with e-health support for stroke patients.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2018Article
- Description of complex interventions: analysis of changes in reporting in randomised trials since 2002.Trials · 2018Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo 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.
designAnalysis 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.
resultsMost 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.
conclusionsMost 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.
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.