Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Schroter, Sara
dc.contributor.author Glasziou, Paul
dc.contributor.author Heneghan, Carl
dc.date.accessioned 2012-10-31T18:29:13Z
dc.date.available 2012-10-31T18:29:13Z
dc.date.issued 2012-11-22
dc.identifier doi:10.5061/dryad.h85k0
dc.identifier.citation Schroter S, Glasziou P, Heneghan C (2012) Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2: e001978.
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/10255/dryad.43888
dc.description OBJECTIVES: To be useable in clinical practice, treatments studied in trials must provide sufficient information to enable clinicians and researchers to replicate. We sought to assess the completeness of treatment descriptions in published randomised controlled trials using a checklist and to determine the extent to which peer reviewers and editors comment on the quality of reporting of treatments. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Trials published in the BMJ, a general medical journal. PARTICIPANTS: 51 trials published in the BMJ were independently evaluated by two raters using the checklist. Reviewers’ and editors’ comments were also assessed for statements on treatment descriptions. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of trials rated as replicable (primary outcome). RESULTS: For 57% (29/51) of the papers, published treatment descriptions were not considered sufficient to allow replication. Most poorly described aspects were the actual procedures involved including the sequencing of the technique (what happened and when) and the physical or informational materials used (e.g. training materials): 53% and 43% not clear, respectively. For a third of treatments, the dose/duration of individual sessions was not clear and for a quarter the schedule (interval, frequency, duration, or timing) was not clear. Although the majority of problems were not picked up by reviewers and editors, when they were detected only about two-thirds were fixed before publication. CONCLUSIONS: Journals wanting to publish research of use to practicing health care professionals need to pay more attention to descriptions of treatments. Our checklist, may be useful for reviewers, and editors and could help ensure important details of treatments are provided before papers are in the public domain.
dc.relation.haspart doi:10.5061/dryad.h85k0/1
dc.relation.isreferencedby doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001978
dc.relation.isreferencedby PMID:23180392
dc.subject GENERAL MEDICINE (see Internal Medicine)
dc.subject Protocols & guidelines
dc.subject JOURNALISM (see Medical Journalism)
dc.title Data from: Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials
dc.type Article *
dc.contributor.correspondingAuthor Schroter, Sara
prism.publicationName BMJ Open

Files in this package

Content in the Dryad Digital Repository is offered "as is." By downloading files, you agree to the Dryad Terms of Service. To the extent possible under law, the authors have waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this data. CC0 (opens a new window) Open Data (opens a new window)

Title Data file
Downloaded 117 times
Description The checklist responses for each trial alongside an indication of whether a problem with the description of the intervention was reported prior to publication
Download Dataset for dryad.xlsx (34.27Kb)
Details View File Details