SynthesisBMJ open2022
Reporting dose in complex self-management support interventions for long-term conditions: is it defined by researchers and received by participants? A systematic review.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
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 NUMBER: CRD42020180988.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.