- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Intervention not described / defined
- What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions
Ref ID | 136 |
First Author | T. C. Hoffmann |
Journal | BMJ OPEN |
Year Of Publishing | 2015 |
URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4654305/pdf/bmjopen-2015-009051.pdf |
Keywords |
Cochrane Author Missing data Cardiology Complimentary & Alternative Physiotherapy Non-Cochrane reviews |
Problem(s) |
Intervention not described / defined |
Number of systematic reviews included | 60 |
Summary of Findings | 30 Cochrane and 30 non-Cochrane systematic reviews were included comprising 568 eligible trials and 589 eligible interventions. Most reviews were missing information for the majority of items. The most incompletely described items were: modifications, intervention fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring (missing from all interventions in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews, respectively). 46 corresponding authors of the 58 reviews with eligible interventions were contacted. Of the 33 (71%) authors who responded, 19 (58%) reported that they had further information about the intervention that was not included in the review, while 23 (70%) indicated that they had tried to obtain further information about the intervention as part of the review, using various methods, with variable success. |
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |