University Library
  • Login
A gateway to Melbourne's research publications
Minerva Access is the University's Institutional Repository. It aims to collect, preserve, and showcase the intellectual output of staff and students of the University of Melbourne for a global audience.
View Item 
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
  • View Item
  • Minerva Access
  • Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health
  • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    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

    Thumbnail
    Download
    Published version (1.063Mb)

    Citations
    Scopus
    Web of Science
    Altmetric
    30
    27
    Author
    Hoffmann, TC; Walker, MF; Langhorne, P; Eames, S; Thomas, E; Glasziou, P
    Date
    2015-01-01
    Source Title
    BMJ Open
    Publisher
    BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
    University of Melbourne Author/s
    Thomas, Emma
    Affiliation
    Melbourne School of Population and Global Health
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Document Type
    Journal Article
    Citations
    Hoffmann, T. C., Walker, M. F., Langhorne, P., Eames, S., Thomas, E. & Glasziou, P. (2015). 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. BMJ OPEN, 5 (11), https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051.
    Access Status
    Open Access
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/11343/257776
    DOI
    10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051
    Abstract
    <h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Design</h4>Analysis of a random sample of systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions; online survey of review authors.<h4>Data sources and study selection</h4>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.<h4>Data collection</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>Most 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.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Most 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.

    Export Reference in RIS Format     

    Endnote

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format" and choose "open with... Endnote".

    Refworks

    • Click on "Export Reference in RIS Format". Login to Refworks, go to References => Import References


    Collections
    • Minerva Elements Records [53183]
    • Melbourne School of Population and Global Health - Research Publications [5356]
    Minerva AccessDepositing Your Work (for University of Melbourne Staff and Students)NewsFAQs

    BrowseCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects
    My AccountLoginRegister
    StatisticsMost Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors