Overview of Reviews Using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) as a Measure of Trial Intervention Reporting Quality

Dijkers, Marcel P.

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.09.397

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Poor reporting of interventions is not unique to exercise. Indeed, similar issues have been observed across a range of medical interventions,62 but exercise studies appear to more poorly report interventions 11. Our results show that the names of, and rationale for, exercise (TIDieR items 1 and 2) were very well reported, but this is of little use for researchers or clinicians trying to replicate the intervention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…However, we did make a judgement on these categorisations post hoc using suggested cut-offs from included systematic reviews34 35 to support our claims, and indeed, CERT and TIDieR do not provide criteria to do so 13 14. While outside the scope of this overview of systematic reviews, it is also important to note that many trials often do not sufficiently report comparators,62 which is important for assessing the internal validity of the trial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Interestingly, while the included reviews scored poorly well on TIDieR (median=49%, IQR 33) they scored much worse on CERT (median=24%, IQR 19). This disparity may be explained by the broad nature of TIDieR whereby, in trying to cover all healthcare interventions,62 it is too general for exercise. Based on the specificity of CERT to exercise, we recommend that authors use CERT to guide reporting of their exercise interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

If exercise is medicine, why don’t we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo determine how well exercise interventions are reported in trials in health and disease.DesignOverview of systematic reviews.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus and PsycINFO from inception until June 2021.Eligibility criteriaReviews of any health condition were included if they primarily assessed quality of exercise intervention reporting using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) or the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We assessed review quality using a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews.ResultsWe identified 7804 studies and included 28 systematic reviews. The median (IQR) percentage of CERT and TIDieR items appropriately reported was 24% (19%) and 49% (33%), respectively. TIDieR items 1, Brief name (median=100%, IQR 4) and 2, Why (median=98%, IQR 6), as well as CERT item 4, Supervision and delivery (median=68%, IQR 89), were the best reported. For replication of exercise interventions, TIDieR item 8, When and how much, was moderately well reported (median=62%, IQR 68) although CERT item 8, Description of each exercise to enable replication (median=23%, IQR 44) and item 13, Detailed description of the exercise intervention (median=24%, IQR 66) were poorly reported. Quality of systematic reviews ranged from moderate to critically low quality.ConclusionExercise interventions are poorly reported across a range of health conditions. If exercise is medicine, then how it is prescribed and delivered is unclear, potentially limiting its translation from research to practice.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021261285; Open Science Framework: osf.io/my3ec/.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 47%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

If exercise is medicine, why don’t we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 41 Poor implementation of the TIDieR checklist could also be due to the guidelines being too broad and generic and difficult for authors to adapt to their own interventions. 43 Making the TIDieR checklist clearer and developing customised versions for specific intervention types could increase implementation of the checklist guidelines and ultimately improve intervention description and reporting. 44 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reporting dose in complex self-management support interventions for long-term conditions: is it defined by researchers and received by participants? A systematic review

Rookes¹,

Barat

Turner

et al. 2022

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe minimum clinically effective dose, and whether this is received in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of complex self-management interventions in long-term conditions (LTCs), can be unclear. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist states that dose should be clearly reported to ensure validity and reliable implementation.ObjectivesTo identify whether the expected minimum clinically effective dose, and the dose participants received is reported within research articles and if reporting has improved since the TIDieR checklist was published.MethodsFour databases were systematically searched (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, AMED and CINAHL) to identify published reports between 2008 and 2022 for RCTs investigating complex self-management interventions in LTCs. Data on reporting of dose were extracted and synthesised from the eligible articles.Results94 articles covering various LTCs including diabetes, stroke and arthritis were included. Most complex interventions involved behaviour change combined with education and/or exercise. The maximum dose was usually reported (n=90; 97.8%), but the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose received were reported in only 28 (30.4%) and 62 (67.4%) articles, respectively. Reporting of the expected minimum clinically effective dose and the dose participants received did not improve following the publication of the TIDieR checklist in 2014.ConclusionsInterpreting results and implementing effective complex self-management interventions is difficult when researchers’ reporting of dose is not in line with guidelines. If trial findings indicate benefit from the intervention, clear reporting of dose ensures reliable implementation to standard care. If the results are non-significant, detailed reporting enables better interpretation of results, that is, differentiating between poor implementation and lack of effectiveness. This ensures quality of interventions and validity and generalisability of trial findings. Therefore, wider adoption of reporting the TIDieR checklist dose aspects is strongly recommended. Alternatively, customised guidelines for reporting dose in complex self-management interventions could be developed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020180988.

show abstract

“…However, the checklist authors acknowledge that for some particularly complex interventions [ 14 ], the checklist may not be able to capture the full complexity of these interventions [ 12 ]. The need for versions of the checklist that are specific to particular topics has therefore been suggested [ 15 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using qualitative research to develop an elaboration of the TIDieR checklist for interventions to enhance vaccination communication: short report

Glenton

Carlsen

Winje

et al. 2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased interest in communication with the public regarding vaccination. Our recent Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis points to several factors that could influence the implementation and success of healthcare worker communication with older adults about vaccination. However, it is often difficult to assess whether factors identified as potentially important in qualitative studies have been considered in randomized trials because of poor trial reporting. We therefore decided to use our qualitative evidence synthesis findings to encourage better reporting of vaccination communication interventions in trials by developing an elaboration of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for intervention reporting. Methods We examined the findings from our Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis on healthcare workers’ perceptions of and experiences with communicating about vaccination with adults over the age of 50 years. We identified factors that could influence the implementation and uptake, and thereby the effectiveness, of vaccination communication interventions. We then drafted a list of the information elements we would need from trial reports to assess whether these factors had been considered in the development of the interventions evaluated in these trials. Finally, we compared our list of information elements to the TIDieR checklist items. We were able to align all of our information elements with the TIDieR items. However, for several of the TIDieR items, we developed a more detailed description to ensure that relevant information would be captured sufficiently in trial reports. Results We developed elaborations for the following TIDieR items: “Why” (item 2), “What—materials” (item 3), “Who provided” (item 5), “How” (item 6), “Where” (item 7) and “Tailoring” (item 9). Conclusions Both qualitative research and trials of intervention effectiveness are critical to furthering our understanding of what works, where, for whom and through which mechanisms. However, a key ingredient for developing this understanding is adequate reporting of intervention design, content and implementation in randomized trials. We hope that this elaboration of the TIDier checklist will improve reporting of interventions in trials focused on vaccine communication with older adults, and thereby enhance the usability of this research for developing future communication strategies.

show abstract

Overview of Reviews Using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) as a Measure of Trial Intervention Reporting Quality

Cited by 20 publications

References 36 publications

If exercise is medicine, why don’t we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

If exercise is medicine, why don’t we know the dose? An overview of systematic reviews assessing reporting quality of exercise interventions in health and disease

Reporting dose in complex self-management support interventions for long-term conditions: is it defined by researchers and received by participants? A systematic review

Using qualitative research to develop an elaboration of the TIDieR checklist for interventions to enhance vaccination communication: short report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About