ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2021
Intervention Reporting of Published Trials Is Insufficient in Orthopaedic Surgery Journals: Application of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication Checklist.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Replicability of Highly Cited Comparative Studies in Orthopedic Journals.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2026Review
- Completeness of Reporting and Intervention Description in Articles on Psychological Interventions for Pediatric Patients with Adolescent Idiopathic Scoliosis: A Meta-Research Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Quasi-experimental studies in theJournal of Korean biological nursing science · 2025Review
- Improving reporting standards in quantitative educational intervention research: introducing the CLOSER and CIDER checklists.Journal of new approaches in educational research · 2025Article
- The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) formulas for diabetes based on the consort statement and its extension for CHM formulas.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Article
- Evidence-Based Surgery: What Can Intra-Operative Images Contribute?Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Reporting characteristics of nonsurgical periodontal therapy trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: an observational study.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2023Observational
- Completeness of intervention description in invasive cardiology trials: an observational study ofFrontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Visualization of the recurrent laryngeal nerve alone versus intraoperative nerve monitoring in primary thyroidectomy: a framework approach to a missing typology.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
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
purposeOutcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been shown to influence clinical decision making. Thus, the quality and reliability of these outcomes are essential for both patients and medical care providers. To date, no study has assessed the quality of intervention reporting of RCTs in orthopaedics. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of intervention reporting of published RCTs in the field of orthopaedics using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.
methodsIn this cross-sectional analysis, we applied the TIDieR checklist to assess the quality of intervention reporting in orthopaedic RCTs. Additionally, we evaluated the TIDieR checklist's influence on intervention reporting by comparing overall adherence to checklist items in trials published before the TIDieR checklist's release versus trials published after its release. Finally, we assessed whether certain factors were associated with the quality of intervention reporting.
resultsFrom a random sample of 300 publications in orthopaedic journals, 175 parallel-arm and cluster RCTs were identified. The overall rate of adherence to TIDieR items was 58.4%. Only 31.4% of orthopaedic RCTs adhered to at least 6 of the 12 TIDieR checklist items, whereas 0% adhered to all 12 items. We found no significant improvement in the quality of intervention reporting in studies published after the TIDieR checklist's release compared with studies published before its release (
conclusionsOur results suggest suboptimal reporting of orthopaedic RCT interventions. In addition, the TIDieR checklist's intended effect-to better the quality of RCT intervention reporting-appears to have fallen short of its goal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Because outcomes of RCTs are used to guide clinical decision making, it is essential that orthopaedic surgeons and clinical practice guideline panels are equipped with high-quality published research. Increasing the accuracy of intervention reporting may lead to more accurate clinical application. Thus, adoption of more stringent reporting of trial interventions by researchers, authors, and journal editors may improve the quality of orthopaedic research, as well as improve patient outcomes.
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.