Dataset Information

Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation.

Results

We identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials.

Conclusions

Reports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials.

SUBMITTER: Montgomery AA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3157424 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.

Montgomery Alan A AA Astin Margaret P MP Peters Tim J TJ

Trials 20110719

<h4>Background</h4>Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation ...[more]

PMID: 21771302

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB Health, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, and the Cochrane EPOC (effective practice and organisation of care) register (searches updated in April 2011).Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. Outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health and psychosocial status, including quality of life outcomes, wellbeing, and measures of disability or functional status. Also included were measures of patient and provider behaviour, including drug adherence, utilisation of health services, acceptability of services, and costs.Data selectionTwo reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. As meta-analysis of results was not possible owing to heterogeneity in participants and interventions, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies was carried out.Results10 studies examining a range of complex interventions totalling 3407 patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Two studies described interventions for patients with specific comorbidities. The remaining eight studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic deprivation was minimal. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple components. In six of the 10 studies the predominant component was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, intervention components were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed, with a trend towards improved prescribing and drug adherence. The results indicated that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors in comorbid conditions or functional difficulties in multimorbidity may be more effective. No economic analyses were included, although the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies could provide potentially important cost savings.ConclusionsEvidence on the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited, despite the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on patients and healthcare systems. Interventions to date have had mixed effects, although are likely to be more effective if targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties. A need exists to clearly identify patients with multimorbidity and to develop cost effective and specifically targeted interventions that can improve health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundRandomized trials of complex, non-pharmacologic interventions implemented in home and community settings, such as the University of Southern California (USC)-Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center (RLANRC) Pressure Ulcer Prevention Study (PUPS), present unique challenges with respect to (1) participant recruitment and retention, (2) intervention delivery and fidelity, (3) randomization and assessment, and (4) potential inadvertent treatment effects.PurposeWe describe the methods employed to address the challenges confronted in implementing PUPS. In this randomized controlled trial, we are assessing the efficacy of a complex, preventive intervention in reducing the incidence of, and costs associated with, the development of medically serious pressure ulcers in people with spinal cord injury.MethodsIndividuals with spinal cord injury recruited from RLANRC were assigned to either a 12-month preventive intervention group or a standard care control group. The primary outcome is the incidence of serious pressure ulcers with secondary endpoints including ulcer-related surgeries, medical treatment costs, and quality of life. These outcomes are assessed at 12 and 24 months after randomization. Additionally, we are studying the mediating mechanisms that account for intervention outcomes.ResultsPUPS has been successfully implemented, including recruitment of the target sample size of 170 participants, assurance of the integrity of intervention protocol delivery with an average 90% treatment adherence rate, and enactment of the assessment plan. However, implementation has been replete with challenges. To meet recruitment goals, we instituted a five-pronged approach customized for an underserved, ethnically diverse population. In intervention delivery, we increased staff time to overcome economic and cultural barriers to retention and adherence. To ensure treatment fidelity and replicability, we monitored intervention protocol delivery in accordance with a rigorous plan. Finally, we have overcome unanticipated assessment and design concerns related to (1) determining pressure ulcer incidence/severity, (2) randomization imbalance, and (3) inadvertent potential control group contamination.LimitationsWe have addressed the most daunting challenges encountered in the recruitment, assessment, and intervention phases of PUPS. Some challenges and solutions may not apply to trials conducted in other settings.ConclusionsOvercoming challenges has required a multifaceted approach incorporating individualization, flexibility, and persistence, as well as the ability to implement needed mid-course corrections.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence on workplace health promotion interventions at sea is scattered and includes different methodological approaches. The continued focus on lifestyle and health promotion on land-based industries makes it pertinent to evaluate available data from maritime settings to gain systematic knowledge on the field. METHODS:In this systematic review, we systematically searched PubMed and NLM Gateway (for MEDLINE), Institute of Scientific Information/Web of Science (ISI/WOS), and SCOPUS up to January 2019 using standard keywords including lifestyle interventions in the maritime setting. Two independent reviewers assessed papers and extracted the data. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Due to significant heterogeneity between studies, the effectiveness of interventions was presented as a qualitative synthesis. RESULTS:After the initial search and refinement based on a total of 4432 records, ten articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Six studies originated from US maritime settings, 3 studies were conducted on Danish seafarers and one study came from Finland. The main focus of 6 studies was educational interventions including stress management, healthy eating, anti-smoking and anti-drinking sessions, sexual behavior program, and advice about preventive strategies. Four studies described the implementation of interventions, including micro-nutrient supplementation, physical activity, and pharmacotherapy. Follow-up assessments occurred over a time period ranging from 80?days to 2?years. Three studies found a positive though limited effect of structural and/or education interventions in maritime settings. The quality of all included studies was modest. CONCLUSION:Results of this systematic review show that a limited number of studies of lifestyle interventions in the maritime setting exist and that the quality of them is generally modest. Also, most of the interventions identified have failed to demonstrate substantial health benefits for seafarers. Systematic review registration number in PROSPERO: CRD42019134533.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.Review methodsIntervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.Results22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.ConclusionsThe results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.

Dataset Information

Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets