Dataset Information

Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials. OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials. DATA SOURCES: (1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes. RESULTS: (1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n?=?239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors." CONCLUSION: Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.

SUBMITTER: Grant SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3666983 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.

Grant Sean P SP Mayo-Wilson Evan E Melendez-Torres G J GJ Montgomery Paul P

PloS one 20130529 5

<h4>Background</h4>Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.<h4>Objective/design</h4>We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.<h4>Data sources</h4>(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electroni ...[more]

PMID: 23734256

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives: We aimed to study the prevalence of selective reporting of primary and secondary outcomes in tinnitus trials and to examine if selective reporting of outcome measures is influenced by the nature and direction of its results. Background: Selective reporting of outcome measures has been reported in several biomedical fields and can influence the clinical usefulness and implementation of outcomes of clinical trials. It is reported as one of the obstacles in finding an effective intervention for tinnitus. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) was used to identify all registered interventional tinnitus trials up to December 2015. A standardized search was used to find corresponding publications up to March 2018. The prespecified outcomes in CT.gov were compared with the outcomes reported in corresponding publication(s). The effects of the (lack of) statistical significance of trial results and the effects of funding source on record adherence were evaluated. Changes in registration elements were assessed with the Archive site of CT.gov. Results: We found corresponding publications for 60 (64.5%) of 93 eligible tinnitus trials registered in CT.gov. Of all the publications, five (7.5%) fully reported outcome measures entirely in line with the prespecified outcome measures. Discrepancies between the prespecified and reported outcomes were found in a total of 51 (76.1%) of the studies for primary outcomes, whereas 62 (92.5%) of the studies had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. In secondary outcomes, statistical significance of trial results influenced CT.gov record adherence. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of discrepancy in industry-funded [n = 98 (87.5%) discrepant outcomes] and non-industry funded trials [n = 172 (74.5%) discrepant outcomes] (p = 0.01). Finally, 15 (25.9%) trialists made modifications in registered outcome measures during or after the trial period. Conclusion: Tinnitus trials suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias. Awareness of its presence must be raised to limit the obstacles of finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.

Project description:BackgroundRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used to evaluate social and psychological interventions and inform policy decisions about them. Accurate, complete, and transparent reports of social and psychological intervention RCTs are essential for understanding their design, conduct, results, and the implications of the findings. However, the reporting of RCTs of social and psychological interventions remains suboptimal. The CONSORT Statement has improved the reporting of RCTs in biomedicine. A similar high-quality guideline is needed for the behavioural and social sciences. Our objective was to develop an official extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 Statement (CONSORT 2010) for reporting RCTs of social and psychological interventions: CONSORT-SPI 2018.MethodsWe followed best practices in developing the reporting guideline extension. First, we conducted a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines. We then conducted an online Delphi process including 384 international participants. In March 2014, we held a 3-day consensus meeting of 31 experts to determine the content of a checklist specifically targeting social and psychological intervention RCTs. Experts discussed previous research and methodological issues of particular relevance to social and psychological intervention RCTs. They then voted on proposed modifications or extensions of items from CONSORT 2010.ResultsThe CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist extends 9 of the 25 items from CONSORT 2010: background and objectives, trial design, participants, interventions, statistical methods, participant flow, baseline data, outcomes and estimation, and funding. In addition, participants added a new item related to stakeholder involvement, and they modified aspects of the flow diagram related to participant recruitment and retention.ConclusionsAuthors should use CONSORT-SPI 2018 to improve reporting of their social and psychological intervention RCTs. Journals should revise editorial policies and procedures to require use of reporting guidelines by authors and peer reviewers to produce manuscripts that allow readers to appraise study quality, evaluate the applicability of findings to their contexts, and replicate effective interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveProspective registration has been widely implemented and accepted as a best practice in clinical research, but retrospective registration is still commonly found. We assessed to what extent retrospective registration is reported transparently in journal publications and investigated factors associated with transparent reporting.DesignWe used a dataset of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien, with a German University Medical Center as the lead centre, completed in 2009-2017, and with a corresponding peer-reviewed results publication. We extracted all registration statements from results publications of retrospectively registered trials and assessed whether they mention or justify the retrospective registration. We analysed associations of retrospective registration and reporting thereof with registration number reporting, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) membership/-following and industry sponsorship using χ2 or Fisher exact test.ResultsIn the dataset of 1927 trials with a corresponding results publication, 956 (53.7%) were retrospectively registered. Of those, 2.2% (21) explicitly report the retrospective registration in the abstract and 3.5% (33) in the full text. In 2.1% (20) of publications, authors provide an explanation for the retrospective registration in the full text. Registration numbers were significantly underreported in abstracts of retrospectively registered trials compared with prospectively registered trials. Publications in ICMJE member journals did not have statistically significantly higher rates of both prospective registration and disclosure of retrospective registration, and publications in journals claiming to follow ICMJE recommendations showed statistically significantly lower rates compared with non-ICMJE-following journals. Industry sponsorship of trials was significantly associated with higher rates of prospective registration, but not with transparent registration reporting.ConclusionsContrary to ICMJE guidance, retrospective registration is disclosed and explained only in a small number of retrospectively registered studies. Disclosure of the retrospective nature of the registration would require a brief statement in the manuscript and could be easily implemented by journals.

Project description:BackgroundTelehealth-delivered dietary interventions are effective for chronic disease management and are an emerging area of clinical practice. However, to apply interventions from the research setting in clinical practice, health professionals need details of each intervention component.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting in published dietary chronic disease management trials that used telehealth delivery methods.MethodsEligible randomized controlled trial publications were identified through a systematic review. The completeness of reporting of experimental and comparison interventions was assessed by two independent assessors using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist that consists of 12 items including intervention rationale, materials used, procedures, providers, delivery mode, location, when and how much intervention delivered, intervention tailoring, intervention modifications, and fidelity. Where reporting was incomplete, further information was sought from additional published material and through email correspondence with trial authors.ResultsWithin the 37 eligible trials, there were 49 experimental interventions and 37 comparison interventions. One trial reported every TIDieR item for their experimental intervention. No publications reported every item for the comparison intervention. For the experimental interventions, the most commonly reported items were location (96%), mode of delivery (98%), and rationale for the essential intervention elements (96%). Least reported items for experimental interventions were modifications (2%) and intervention material descriptions (39%) and where to access them (20%). Of the 37 authors, 14 responded with further information, and 8 could not be contacted.ConclusionsMany details of the experimental and comparison interventions in telehealth-delivered dietary chronic disease management trials are incompletely reported. This prevents accurate interpretation of trial results and implementation of effective interventions in clinical practice.

Dataset Information

Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.

Publications

Reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials: a systematic review of reporting guidelines and trial publications.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets