BACKGROUND: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database. STUDY SELECTION OR ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95% confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines. RESULTS: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23%) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75%) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality. LIMITATIONS: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials.
AD - Musculoskeletal Division, The George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: tiparma@gmail.com.BACKGROUND: Incomplete descriptions of interventions are a common problem in reports of randomised controlled trials. To date no study has evaluated the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the completeness of the descriptions of physiotherapy interventions in a random sample of reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 200 reports of RCTs from the PEDro database. STUDY SELECTION OR ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included full text papers, written in English, and reporting trials with two arms. We included trials evaluating any type of physiotherapy interventions and subdisciplines. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality was evaluated using the PEDro scale and completeness of intervention description using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. The proportion and 95% confidence interval were calculated for intervention and control groups, and used to present the relationship between completeness and methodological quality, and subdisciplines. RESULTS: Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy RCTs was poor. For intervention groups, 46 (23%) trials did not describe at least half of the items. Reporting was worse for control groups, 149 (75%) trials described less than half of the items. There was no clear difference in the completeness across subdisciplines or methodological quality. LIMITATIONS: Our sample were restricted to trials published in English in 2013. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy RCTs are typically incomplete. Authors and journals should aim for more complete descriptions of interventions in physiotherapy trials.
PY - 2016 SN - 1873-1465 (Electronic)