“but what did they actually do?” poor reporting of interventions: a remediable barrier to...
TRANSCRIPT
“But WHAT did they actually do?”Poor reporting of interventions: a remediable
barrier to research translation
Associate Professor Tammy Hoffmann
@Tammy_Hoffmann [email protected]
Waste in Research>85% of research is wasted due to:
Chalmers, I. & Glasziou, P., 2009. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet, 374(9683), pp.86–9.
Reporting guidelines
• Although ultimate responsibility lies with researchers, editors “should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish”.
• Guidelines for reporting health research are important tools to facilitate this.
Reporting Guidelines
• Specify a minimum set of items needed for a complete and clear account of study methods and funding.
• Adherence to guidelines improves the accuracy and transparency of publications.
• Some journals refer authors to guidelines in ‘Instructions to Authors’ – has much less impact on reporting quality than requiring authors to adhere to them
EQUATOR Network
www.equator-network.org/
A guide for promoting the use of reporting guidelines in your journal:http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Reporting-guidelines-in-journals-August-2013.pdf
Most frequently used guidelines
• CONSORT – for reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs)
- currently >23 000 trials in PEDro
• PRISMA – for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
• STARD – for diagnostic accuracy studies• STROBE – for observational studies in epidemiology
Without a complete description of an intervention…
• other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings
• for effective interventions, clinicians, patients, and other decision makers are left unclear about how to reliably implement the intervention
Do journals provide sufficient instructions to authors?
• Audit of ‘Instructions to Authors’ for 106 journals
• 58% mentioned the CONSORT statement + 6% also mentioned the CONSORT extension statements
• Only 15 (14%) specifically mentioned the reporting of interventions
Of these, nearly all provided non-specific instructions e.g. “Describe study procedures, including any interventions…”
Hoffmann, T.C., English, T. & Glasziou Paul, P., 2014. Reporting of interventions in randomised controlled trials: an audit of journal Instructions to Authors. Trials, 15(20).
How big is the problem?
After author ...
Setting Recipient Provider Procedure Materials Intensity Schedule Overall0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Afte...
Individual checklist items and overall rating of completeness of the intervention description
% o
f int
erve
ntion
s ra
ted
as
adeq
uate
ly d
escr
ibed
Hoffmann, T., Erueti, C., & Glasziou, P. (2013). BMJ. 347:f3755
Aim of TIDieR
To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions
emphasis is on trials, but the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs
http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1687.long
TIDieR development process
• Literature review Potential checklist items were generated from:– Existing checklists – Forward and backward citation searching of each
published checklist– Research analysing the quality of intervention reporting in
trials and related literature
• Two round modified Delphi consensus survey
• Face-to-face consensus meeting
A recipe
CONSORT + TIDieR
• An extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement:
SPIRIT + TIDieR
• An extension of:
Limits?WEBSITE
PHOTOS of materials
VIDEO of the procedure
Smartphone APP
Published PROTOCOL
Online supplementary materials
Who should use TIDieR?
Authors• of trials• of protocols• of other evaluative study designs• of systematic reviews
Reviewers
Editors and Journals- endorse TIDieR - modify their ‘Instructions to Authors’ and require its use (by authors AND reviewers)
BMJ 2014;348:g1687
www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/tidier/
Checklist available in PDF and Word template