ArticleArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2020
The Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a Measure of Intervention Reporting Quality: Rasch Analysis.
Article in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness of prehabilitation on post-operative recovery from lumbar spinal stenosis surgery - A systematic review and intervention component analysis.Clinical rehabilitation · 2026Pooled it
- Telehealth as a Psychological Intervention for Caregivers of Children with Neurodevelopmental Disorders: A Systematic Review with Effect Sizes.Journal of autism and developmental disorders · 2025Pooled it
- A randomised controlled phase II trial to examine the feasibility of using hyper-oxygenated fatty acids (HOFA) to prevent facial pressure injuries from medical devices among adults admitted to intensive care-A research protocol.International wound journal · 2024Article
- Characteristics of mental skills interventions in dance: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System: Identifying Barriers, Facilitators, and Strategies for Implementation in Research, Education, and Clinical Care.Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether the 12 items of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) can be combined into a single summary score reflecting intervention reporting completeness and quality.
designSystematic review and reanalysis of published data. After a systematic search of the published literature, 16 review articles were retrieved with 489 sets of 12 TIDieR ratings of experimental intervention, comparator, or the 2 combined as reported in primary studies. These 489 sets were recoded into a common format and analyzed using Rasch analysis for binary items.
settingNot applicable.
participantsNot applicable.
interventionsNot applicable.
main outcome measuresPsychometric qualities of a Rasch Analysis-based TIDieR summary score.
resultsThe data fit the Rasch model. Infit and outfit values were generally acceptable (range, 0.70-1.45). TIDieR was reasonably unidimensional in its structure. However, the person (here: study) separation ratio was 1.25 with a corresponding reliability of 0.61. In addition, the confidence interval around each estimate of reporting completeness was wide (model standard error of 0.78).
conclusionSeveral Rasch indicators suggested that TIDieR is not a strong instrument for assessing the quality of a researcher's reporting on an intervention. It is recommended that it be used with caution. Improvements in TIDieR itself may make it more helpful as a reporting tool.
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.