Abstract
Background: With the increasing number of RCTs being conducted and published in plastic surgery, clear, accurate, and complete reporting of trial information is critical for readers to properly evaluate a trial's methodology and arrive at appropriate conclusions about its merits and applicability to patients. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was introduced to address the limited guidance for reporting trial interventions. In the present study, we will apply the TIDieR checklist to evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting of RCTs in plastic surgery, compare the quality of intervention reporting before and after the guideline was published and evaluate characteristics associated with TIDieR compliance.
Methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify two trial cohorts — the first cohort published prior to the release of TIDieR and the second cohort published after its release. A random sample of 150 trials from each cohort was screened based upon predefined inclusion criteria. From the final sample, the TIDieR checklist was applied to intervention descriptions and relevant study characteristics were extracted. All screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, blinded manner, and discrepancies were resolved by group discussion.
Results: Following screening, 130 trials were included for analysis. The mean TIDieR score was 6.4 of a possible 12. Five items were reported 90% of the time, while 4 items were reported fewer than 10% of the time. We found that TIDieR publication did not affect intervention reporting (p=.22). Several trial characteristics were associated with both poorer and greater TIDieR adherence.
Conclusion: Our study identified areas in which intervention reporting could be improved. Furthermore, the extent of TIDieR adoption by trialists appears to be limited, and greater efforts are needed to disseminate this reporting guideline if widespread uptake is to be expected. Alternately, it may be more beneficial to incorporate TIDieR into the more widely recognized CONSORT statement.
Methods: A PubMed search was conducted to identify two trial cohorts — the first cohort published prior to the release of TIDieR and the second cohort published after its release. A random sample of 150 trials from each cohort was screened based upon predefined inclusion criteria. From the final sample, the TIDieR checklist was applied to intervention descriptions and relevant study characteristics were extracted. All screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, blinded manner, and discrepancies were resolved by group discussion.
Results: Following screening, 130 trials were included for analysis. The mean TIDieR score was 6.4 of a possible 12. Five items were reported 90% of the time, while 4 items were reported fewer than 10% of the time. We found that TIDieR publication did not affect intervention reporting (p=.22). Several trial characteristics were associated with both poorer and greater TIDieR adherence.
Conclusion: Our study identified areas in which intervention reporting could be improved. Furthermore, the extent of TIDieR adoption by trialists appears to be limited, and greater efforts are needed to disseminate this reporting guideline if widespread uptake is to be expected. Alternately, it may be more beneficial to incorporate TIDieR into the more widely recognized CONSORT statement.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| State | Published - 4 Sep 2020 |
| Event | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Day 2020 - Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences College of Osteopathic Medicine, Tulsa, United States Duration: 27 Feb 2020 → 28 Feb 2020 |
Conference
| Conference | Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences Research Day 2020 |
|---|---|
| Country/Territory | United States |
| City | Tulsa |
| Period | 27/02/20 → 28/02/20 |