Article type
Year
Abstract
Background:
Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often focus on the results, thereby failing to adequately describe the characteristics of the interventions studied. The findings of these reports are of little use as they cannot be replicated in real-life settings.
Objectives:
We aimed to assess the quality of descriptions provided for low back pain rehabilitation interventions in RCTs.
Methods:
We systematically searched for all RCTs considered eligible in Cochrane Systematic Rviews (SRs) published (full-text) on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in February 2013, focusing on the evaluation of rehabilitation interventions for mechanical low back pain. Two authors independently evaluated through an ad hoc checklist the quality of descriptions of rehabilitation interventions. The primary outcome was the proportion of items considered to be able to be fully replicated based on the reported information.
Results:
Across 11 SRs, 185 RCTs were included (median (IRQ) of publication year 1998 (1990 - 2004)). Less than one fifth (17,8%) of the RCTs were able to be replicated. Most RCTs (49,7 %) did not report key information, compromising the trials’ ability to be replicated; another one fifth (17,3%) of RCTs gave insufficient descriptions of interventions. Who provides and who receives the intervention were the most commonly reported items in the description of interventions (91% and 81%, respectively) while materials and procedure were less reported (48% and 43%, respectively). Over time, the reporting of intervention descriptions improved.
Conclusions:
Despite the remarkable amount of effort spent on conducting RCTs to compare the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches for low back pain, a large proportion of trials failed to report key information to allow for the repetition of the intervention. This is likely to hinder practical application of the research findings.
Published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often focus on the results, thereby failing to adequately describe the characteristics of the interventions studied. The findings of these reports are of little use as they cannot be replicated in real-life settings.
Objectives:
We aimed to assess the quality of descriptions provided for low back pain rehabilitation interventions in RCTs.
Methods:
We systematically searched for all RCTs considered eligible in Cochrane Systematic Rviews (SRs) published (full-text) on The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in February 2013, focusing on the evaluation of rehabilitation interventions for mechanical low back pain. Two authors independently evaluated through an ad hoc checklist the quality of descriptions of rehabilitation interventions. The primary outcome was the proportion of items considered to be able to be fully replicated based on the reported information.
Results:
Across 11 SRs, 185 RCTs were included (median (IRQ) of publication year 1998 (1990 - 2004)). Less than one fifth (17,8%) of the RCTs were able to be replicated. Most RCTs (49,7 %) did not report key information, compromising the trials’ ability to be replicated; another one fifth (17,3%) of RCTs gave insufficient descriptions of interventions. Who provides and who receives the intervention were the most commonly reported items in the description of interventions (91% and 81%, respectively) while materials and procedure were less reported (48% and 43%, respectively). Over time, the reporting of intervention descriptions improved.
Conclusions:
Despite the remarkable amount of effort spent on conducting RCTs to compare the effectiveness of rehabilitation approaches for low back pain, a large proportion of trials failed to report key information to allow for the repetition of the intervention. This is likely to hinder practical application of the research findings.