The DOI matches its Crossref record; 222 of the 223 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 1 of the 194 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance. Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice). Change may be more likely if implementation strategies are specifically chosen to address these determinants. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether tailored intervention strategies are effective in improving professional practice and healthcare outcomes. We compared interventions tailored to address the identified determinants of practice with either no intervention or interventions not tailored to the determinants. SEARCH METHODS: We conducted searches of The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014. We conducted a final search in December 2014 (in MEDLINE only) for more recently published trials. We conducted searches of the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) in March 2013. We also handsearched two journals. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster-randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions tailored to address prospectively identified determinants of practice, which reported objectively measured professional practice or healthcare outcomes, and where at least one group received an intervention designed to address prospectively identified determinants of practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data. We undertook qualitative and quantitative analyses, the quantitative analysis including two elements: we carried out 1) meta-regression analyses to compare interventions tailored to address identified determinants with either no interventions or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants, and 2) heterogeneity analyses to investigate sources of differences in the effectiveness of interventions. These included the effects of: risk of bias, use of a theory when developing the intervention, whether adjustment was made for local factors, and number of domains addressed with the determinants identified. MAIN RESULTS: We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants. The outcome was implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations. Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001). The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta-regression. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increase in the number of new studies identified, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review. Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate. The number of studies remains small and more research is needed, including trials comparing tailored interventions to no or other interventions, but also studies to develop and investigate the components of tailoring (identification of the most important determinants, selecting interventions to address the determinants). Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants. It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.
Verified 2026-10-06 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This updated Cochrane review found that tailored implementation interventions can improve professional practice, but effects are variable and small to moderate. Across 15 studies in meta-regression, the pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.93, P < 0.001).
Key findings
- The review included 32 cluster-randomised trials comparing tailored interventions with no intervention or non-tailored interventions; 15 studies contributed to the meta-regression, with a pooled OR of 1.56 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.93, P < 0.001).
- In separate comparisons, tailored versus no intervention had a pooled OR of 1.36 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.99, P = 0.099) across 7 studies, while tailored versus non-tailored intervention had a pooled OR of 1.79 (95% CI 1.06 to 3.01, P = 0.033) across 8 studies; removing Beeckman 2013 gave OR 1.48 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.75, P = 0.002).
- The 17 studies not included in the meta-analysis showed variable effectiveness consistent with the meta-regression; GRADE certainty was moderate, and there were insufficient data to assess healthcare outcomes, costs, or adverse effects.
- Heterogeneity analyses found no association between effectiveness and risk of bias, use of theory, adjustment for local factors, or number of determinant domains addressed.
Methods
- Updated Cochrane review of cluster-RCTs with at least two control and two intervention sites, including healthcare professionals responsible for patient care; tailored interventions were defined as strategies planned after prospective identification of determinants of practice.
- Searches covered The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and the British Nursing Index to May 2014, with a final MEDLINE search in December 2014; 9403 unique citations were screened and 32 studies included.
- Two review authors independently assessed quality and extracted data; meta-regression combined adjusted odds ratios with baseline odds ratios as a covariate, and heterogeneity was investigated using the I² residual statistic.
Limitations
- The paper states that the number of studies remains small, methods of tailoring are not well developed or described, it is unclear which element of tailored strategies explains effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness is uncertain.
- The paper states that only 15 of 32 trials could be included in the meta-regression, limiting power to detect study attributes explaining variation, and that evidence is limited for low-income countries and disadvantaged groups.
- Evident from the text: risk of bias was high in 4 studies and unclear in 21, most control groups received only guidelines or educational materials, and no included studies provided sufficient evidence on healthcare outcomes, costs, or adverse effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
177 Not checked yet · 33 Own result · 31 No basis given · 28 Own method · 17 Own interpretation · 1 Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have not identified any reviews evaluating the effects of tailored implementation strategies on professional performance other than the earlier versions of this review”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Five studies included in the analysis reported either an estimate of the ICC or reported data for each cluster, allowing the ICC to be estimated.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Of these, seven were suitable for inclusion in a meta‐regression, and the pooled odds ratio for the seven studies that received no control intervention was 1.36 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.99, P value = 0.099) (Avorn 1992; Callahan 1994; Flottorp 2002; Looijmans 2010; Murphy 2009; Scott 2013; Schouten 2007).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“One study delivered a group lecture and distributed the standard protocol to the control group (Beeckman 2013).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Beeckman 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fifteen studies provided enough data to be included in the quantitative analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All included studies were cluster‐randomised trials (Characteristics of included studies).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of studies remains small”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When combined using meta‐regression techniques and adjusting for baseline odds ratios, the pooled odds ratio was 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 1.93, P value < 0.001).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the eight studies where the control group was a non‐tailored intervention, the OR was 1.63 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.40, P value = 0.020), and for the eight studies where the control group received no intervention the OR was 1.30 (95% CI 0.78 to 2.15, P value = 0.243).”
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of the studies described problems of drop‐outs at this level during the trial period.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 187
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Other bias Unclear risk The study took place in a single health maintenance organisation and contamination may be a risk. Baseline adherence was higher than national figures”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Simon 2005 source
The Setting and study period section (p. 3) places the trial's practices within one HMO, and the Discussion (p. 8) says baseline adherence was substantially higher than national figures. “Unclear risk” and possible contamination are the citing authors’ risk-of-bias assessment, not findings the sentence requires Simon et al. to have stated. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Seven are ongoing studies (Ongoing studies) and seven are awaiting assessment (Studies awaiting classification).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The remaining 17 studies were not eligible for meta‐regression because they either did not assess a suitable binary outcome, or they reported no data at baseline.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this update of our review of randomised trials of tailored implementation interventions, we identified an additional nine studies, seven of which had been published since the previous version of the review (Baker 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baker 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Twenty‐three of the studies had been included in the previous version of the review, but we excluded three studies from that review because the interventions were not assessed on this occasion as meeting the criteria for tailoring (Davies 2002; Sehgal 2002; Verhoeven 2005).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Separate models were fitted dependent on the intervention delivered to the control group (none or non‐tailored), but none were found to be associated with the reported effectiveness of the tailored interventions.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We included 15 of 32 studies in the meta‐regression analysis (Table 2; Table 3).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We added nine studies to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 32 comparing an intervention tailored to address identified determinants of practice to no intervention or an intervention(s) not tailored to the determinants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We screened 9403 unique citations (Figure 1) and reviewed the full text of 360.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite the increase in the number of studies, however, our overall finding is similar to that of the previous review.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clear reports of such effects were not included in the studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We excluded 106 with reasons provided in the Characteristics of excluded studies table and we excluded 208 with quick reference to the full text.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 17 studies not included in the meta‐analysis had findings showing variable effectiveness consistent with the findings of the meta‐regression.”
- Also stated in: § Summary of findings · plain
“The effect of tailored interventions in these studies varied from no effect to moderate effect between studies and between outcomes within studies, a finding consistent with the meta‐regression”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Summary of findings · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Currently available studies have used different methods to identify determinants of practice and different approaches to selecting interventions to address the determinants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where data were collected on the same group of patients throughout the trial (three studies), no problem with drop‐outs was reported.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the main analysis with all 15 studies, the pooled odds ratio was 1.54 (95% CI 1.27 to 1.86, P value < 0.001).”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: unclear — It is unclear whether the authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The majority of trials included in this review collected data before and after interventions on different patients, therefore drop‐out at the patient level was not an issue for these trials.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, it is not possible to determine from the studies reviewed which methods of identifying determinants and tailoring interventions to account for them should be selected.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“26 were included in the previous version (Baker 2010)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baker 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether adjustment was made for local factors New In some studies, adjustments were made at the level of the cluster (clinical team, hospital), and these adjustments could potentially improve the intervention effect Add”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We excluded three studies from this update that had been included in the previous version of the review because we assessed them as no longer meeting our criteria for tailoring.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies employed various interventions to improve professional practice”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outcome: Healthcare outcomes Cluster‐RCTs Insufficient data in the included studies Outcome: Costs Cluster‐RCTs Insufficient data in the included studies Outcome: Adverse events Cluster‐RCTs Insufficient data in the included studies”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the included studies, tailoring was undertaken in different ways and agreement on which methods should be used appeared to be absent.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the methods of tailoring are not yet well developed and are not described in detail in published studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was possible to include 32 trials in this update”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“New searches performed to December 2014 and nine new studies identified”
- Also stated in: § What's new · plain
“We excluded three studies from the previous version of the review and added nine studies in this update, giving 32 studies in total.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § What's new · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“New search for studies and content updated (no change to conclusions)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We excluded three studies from the previous version of the review in this update, and added nine studies, giving 32 studies in total.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although there are a number of reviews in specific clinical fields (Chaillet 2006; Kroenke 2000), which have discussed the possibility that tailored strategies might be more effective than strategies selected without taking account of determinants, these reviews did not address the effect or costs of tailored interventions specifically.”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which concluded that tailored interventions were more likely to improve professional practice than no intervention or dissemination of guidelines or educational materials alone.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attempts to change the behaviour of health professionals may be impeded by a variety of different barriers, obstacles, or factors (which we collectively refer to as determinants of practice).”
- Also stated in: § Background · hedged
“determinants are believed to influence the success of improvement strategies.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Background · hedged
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“there can be delays before the findings of research are widely adopted”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grol 2005
- Not checked yetcites Oxman 1995
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it would appear reasonable to expect performance to improve”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This unexpected finding may be due to imprecision, chance, the small number of studies, and other unexplained factors.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two review authors independently classified the intensity of the methods used to identify determinants using the following three categories”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is not yet clear how best to tailor interventions and therefore not clear what the effect of an optimally tailored intervention would be.”
- Also stated in: § Plain language summary · plain
“There is insufficient evidence on the most effective approaches to tailoring, including how determinants should be identified, how decisions should be made on which determinants are most important to address, and how interventions should be selected to account for the important determinants.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Plain language summary · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In our analyses, we used meta‐regression in order to be able to account for differences between control and intervention groups at study baselines.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We applied no language restrictions in the searches or inclusion of studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We conducted a sensitive search of major biomedical databases and trial registries (see Search methods for identification of studies).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Two review authors independently extracted the data from included studies by using a revised version of the data extraction form used in the previous version of the review (Baker 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baker 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Two review authors assessed the risk of bias of the included studies using the approach set out in Chapter 8 of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Higgins 2011).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Higgins 2011
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the studies were of interventions designed to implement appropriate clinical practice, adverse effects may have been unlikely, although it is possible that the implementation interventions could have unintended effects.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For the 15 studies included in the meta‐regression, we combined the estimated odds ratios for each study (adjusted for clustering) using meta‐regression techniques, whereby the baseline odds ratios were included as a covariate to adjust for any baseline differences between the intervention and control groups (Sutton 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sutton 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two independent review authors classified the extent to which the tailored intervention was adjusted to account for local factors using the following two categories”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Bosch and colleagues undertook a qualitative analysis of 20 quality improvement studies reporting investigation of determinants (Bosch 2007).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bosch 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We assessed heterogeneity for all meta‐regression models using the I² residual statistic (Higgins 2003), which represents the proportion of residual between‐study variation due to heterogeneity, as opposed to sampling variability.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Higgins 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is no equivalent of forest or funnel plots for meta‐regression analyses and reliance on only follow‐up results to produce such plots would have provided misleading information.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“but in many studies the reasons for believing a particular strategy would address a particular determinant were not explained.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bosch 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the meta‐regression analyses, we carried out sensitivity analyses assuming a larger clustering effect than had been accounted for in the standard analyses, by using higher ICC estimates (i.e. the reported upper quartile range values) taken from Campbell (Campbell 2005).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Campbell 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Campbell et al extracted 220 ICCs from 21 data sets and reported the results separately for both primary and secondary care settings.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Campbell 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, there may be additional evidence on the effectiveness of tailoring or on how it can be undertaken most effectively.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate.”
- Also stated in: § Plain language summary · plain
“The findings continue to indicate that tailored interventions can change professional practice, although they are not always effective and, when they are, the effect is small to moderate.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“Tailored implementation can be effective, but the effect is variable and tends to be small to moderate.”
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Plain language summary · plain
In the paper
“Once determinants have been identified and those to be addressed have been chosen, strategies to address them have to be selected, but this process may be undertaken in different ways (Wensing 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wensing 2014 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“it is possible that use of such interventions (for example, audit with feedback, educational outreach) would have improved professional practice whether or not tailoring had been undertaken.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“if several methods are used together, a large number of determinants may be identified (Krause 2014a)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krause 2014a
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 5 criteria unclear risk”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outcome: Implementation of recommended practice, e.g. clinical practice guideline recommendations 17 (7 studies included in meta‐regression) Cluster‐RCTs (4) Borderline risk of bias (‐0.5) Inconsistency between studies, and between outcomes within studies (‐0.5) No serious indirectness No serious imprecision None 3”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using a complex search, including a sensitive RCT filter, in the key electronic databases should have identified the majority of relevant, published trials.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 criteria unclear risk, including randomisation and allocation concealment”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Foy 2004 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 5 criteria unclear risk”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whether adjustment was made for local factors New In some studies, adjustments were made at the level of the cluster (clinical team, hospital), and these adjustments could potentially improve the intervention effect Add”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Determinants may be classified in different ways (Légaré 2009).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Légaré 2009
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Use of a theory when developing an intervention In analysis Theories of human behaviour potentially help explain why a determinant affects practice and indicate which interventions are most likely to address the determinants Keep”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We pooled a relatively wide variety of outcomes in the meta‐regression analysis, although in all studies the study outcomes related to processes of care, and the studies all addressed the same question about the effectiveness of tailored interventions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the identification of determinants and tailoring of strategies involve additional steps beyond the application of a particular strategy, such as education alone, the economic costs of tailoring may be higher than several other interventions.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: The identification of determinants and tailoring of strategies involve additional steps beyond the application of a particular strategy.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk Allocation concealment”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Flottorp 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 5 criteria unclear risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Callahan 1994 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 criteria unclear risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Engers 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, this is more likely to be a source of bias for reviews in which interrupted time series and controlled before‐after studies are included, since in comparison with these types of studies, randomised trials are more likely to be identified through electronic database searches.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Conversely, they may be lower through enabling the more expensive elements of interventions to be reserved for situations when they are likely to be effective.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the meta‐regression analysis, the outcomes included were either those reported as the primary outcome or, when this was not possible, we selected the most clinically relevant measure and therefore the introduction of bias is unlikely.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Determinants may be investigated by various methods”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Krause 2014a
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Randomisation at nursing home level”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Information not provided”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk 2 intervention nursing homes withdrew during the study, and 1 control home was excluded as no influenza vaccination was offered during the study period”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Data collection done by medical abstractors but it is not clear if they were blinded”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Follow‐up of 85% of patients achieved”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk A randomised block design was used, but the method for generating the randomisation sequence was not described”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 1 high risk and 5 unclear risk criteria”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Low risk The vaccinating professional recorded the vaccination on a website”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Details not reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Unclear risk Practices were randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Unclear risk The baseline outcomes were similar, except for onset to drug treatment within 180 minutes; not clear if this was adjusted for”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk No loss to follow‐up after randomisation”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk Allocation was not undertaken independently”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is not clear why the mean number of charts reviewed is lower than the 45 planned for; some charts were not available at post intervention data collection”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Baseline characteristics comparable”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 unclear risk criteria”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Data were collected from patient charts and it is not clear whether the data collectors were blinded”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Details not clear.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 1 high risk, 5 unclear risk criteria”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Only 1 hospital withdrew after randomisation”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Patient characteristics were similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Unclear risk Baseline patient characteristics comparable other than age, BP, and smoking prevalence in 1 group, but not clear whether adjusted for”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes were similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Hospitals randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Low likelihood of contamination; baseline characteristics of patients similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Lakshminarayan 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk The hospital was the unit of randomisation”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Leviton 1999 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Practice groups randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Unclear risk Baseline patients' characteristics broadly similar; practices were in a single locality and contamination may have been possible”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Langham 2002
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk No patient differences between study groups”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Karuza 1995 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Data were collected from patient records by a research nurse”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Pharmacies stratified by geographical location prior to randomisation”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes comparable”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Data were collected from all pharmacies in the study”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Unclear risk There are no baseline performance data; the risk of contamination is unclear”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Characteristics of hospitals and professionals similar at baseline, although there was an uneven distribution of patients with heart failure, but there was adjustment”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Unable to assess”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Unclear risk Contamination may have been possible, since geographically related practices were randomised to intervention and control groups. Patient characteristics were similar in both groups”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Groups of geographically related practices were randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 2 unclear risk criteria (1 allocation concealment)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Unclear risk Baseline characteristics not reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Comparable baseline characteristics in the study groups; contamination unlikely”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Looijmans 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Coin toss was used to assign hospitals to intervention or control groups”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Randomisation at the level of the district”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Randomisation at general practice level”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk No differences at baseline”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 unclear risk, 1 high risk criteria”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Baseline characteristics similar; low likelihood of contamination”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Unclear risk Contamination is unlikely; baseline characteristics of the health centres are not reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Process not reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk There were baseline differences in some outcomes, but adjusted for”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Intervention and control groups comparable”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Details not provided”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk A computer random number function was used”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Unclear risk There were no differences in patient characteristics between study groups. No data on clinicians”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Whether or not the data abstractors were blinded is not reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Matchar 2002 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 3 unclear risk criteria”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Murphy 2009 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Unclear risk Baseline characteristics not reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ross‐Degnan 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It would not have been possible to blind staff of the study health centres to the intervention group”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Santoso 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Allocation was undertaken by an independent researcher”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Low risk of contamination”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is not clear whether the data collectors were blind to study groups”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk No practices withdrew”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk More physicians in the control group were male. Otherwise, patient and physician characteristics were similar between groups (adjusted for)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Contamination unlikely; baseline characteristics similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Intention‐to‐treat analysis; all included hospitals completed the study”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Patient characteristics comparable except for education and macrovascular complications (adjusted for)”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk No details given”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Baseline patient characteristics were similar. Contamination unlikely”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Randomisation at the hospital level”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 unclear risk criteria”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk A random number table was used”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Practices were randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Characteristics similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Unclear risk No baseline data”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Method not described”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of sequence generation not described”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 criteria unclear risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk There is no information on blinding of data collection”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Hospitals randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Low risk Allocation was undertaken by a data management centre independent of the researchers”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Scott 2013 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is not clear if the data collectors were blinded”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 criteria unclear risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Patient characteristics were similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Soumerai 1998 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk All hospitals completed the study”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Schouten 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk No details given”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Simon 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Low risk Symptom questionnaire completed by patients”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes Unclear risk It is not clear if data collectors were blind to study group.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Adequate follow‐up achieved”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Details not reported”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk General practices were randomised”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Contamination Low risk Randomised at general practice level”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline outcomes Low risk Baseline outcomes similar”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Baseline characteristics similar; low likelihood of contamination”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 5 unclear risk criteria”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Baseline characteristics comparable”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes Low risk Data were based on a questionnaire completed by patients”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirectn = 318- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 4 criteria unclear risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites van Bruggen 2008 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Risk of bias overall Unclear risk 2 criteria unclear risk”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Other bias Unclear risk Quote:”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Method of allocation not described”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics Low risk Baseline characteristics similar”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes Low risk Over 84% of patients in each study group provided data”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the previous review (Baker 2010), we included a Bayesian analysis as well as a classical analysis, but since these approaches produced similar results, we used only the classical analysis in this review.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Baker 2010 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes Unclear risk Nurses could not be blinded to study group”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Other bias Low risk Generally similar practitioners and patients in study and control groups; randomised by practice, reducing the risk of contamination”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Random sequence generation (selection bias) Low risk Quote:”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Unclear risk No information on adherence to recommended practice”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zwarenstein 2007 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Selective reporting (reporting bias) Low risk Appropriate outcomes reported”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to implementation of improvement in health professional performance.
“Tailored intervention strategies are frequently recommended among approaches to the implementation of improvement in health professional performance.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The determinants of practice may vary in different healthcare settings, groups of healthcare professionals, or clinical tasks.
“The determinants may vary in different healthcare settings, groups of healthcare professionals, or clinical tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The mRCT includes randomised trial records held on the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov website.
“As the mRCT includes randomised trial records held on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) ClinicalTrials.gov website (available at: http://clinicaltrials.gov/), we did not search the latter registry.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The identification of determinants and tailoring of strategies involve additional steps beyond the application of a particular strategy.
“Since the identification of determinants and tailoring of strategies involve additional steps beyond the application of a particular strategy, such as education alone”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Despite this, systematic reviews of interventions designed to change professional practice have shown only small numbers of rigorous evaluations reporting the use of theory to assess implementation problems or guide intervention design [8,13,14].”
From A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems (2017) · cites this paper as [13]
In the citing paper
“and no specific method has been proven superior (37).”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Consequently, strategies are not always well-matched to the contexts in which they are deployed, including the interventions to be implemented, settings, stakeholder preferences, and implementation determinants (37, 42, 54).”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“however, the methods used to identify and prioritize determinants and select implementation strategies were not often well-described”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“While the use of multifaceted and tailored implementation strategies is intuitive and has considerable face validity (29), the evidence regarding their superiority to single-component strategies has been mixed (37, 39, 40).”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“A systematic review of 32 studies testing strategies tailored to address determinants concluded that tailored approaches to implementation were more effective than no strategy or a strategy not tailored to determinants; however, the methods used to identify and prioritize determinants and select implementation strategies were not often well-described and no specific method has been proven superior”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
In the citing paper
“Tailored implementation strategies (37) | 32 RCTs | Meta-regression using 15 randomized trials. Pooled odds ratio of 1.56 (95% CI, 1.27–1.93, p < 0.001)”
From Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda (2019) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“‐2.3”
“95% CI ‐1.63 to 1.7”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in four studies (Evans 1997; Hux 1999; Matchar 2002; Santoso 1996), unclear in 21”
Reported 32 · recomputed 31
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“17 other studies could not be included in the meta‐regression.”
“The results of 14 studies not included in the meta‐regression indicated that, on average, tailored interventions improve professional practice.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“the pooled odds ratio for the seven studies that received no control intervention was 1.36”
“for the eight studies where the control group received no intervention the OR was 1.30”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“We assessed the overall risk of bias as high in four studies (Evans 1997; Hux 1999; Matchar 2002; Santoso 1996)”
“High Callahan 1994”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“The odds ratios at follow‐up, adjusted for clustering, ranged from 1.08 to 10.59.”
“Coenen 2004 Antibiotics not prescribed 0.80 (0.49 to 1.32) 1.07 (0.59 to 1.92)”
Citations
Cites
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Hoffmann, T. C., Glasziou, P. P., Boutron, I., Milne, R., Perera, R., Moher, D., Altman, D. G., Barbour, V., Macdonald, H., Johnston, M., et al. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687 · Cited by 10,548
Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
(2004) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 · Cited by 8,477
Self-citationWhy Don't Physicians Follow Clinical Practice Guidelines?: A Framework for Improvement
Cabana, M. D., Rand, C. S., Powe, N. R., Wu, A. W., Wilson, M. H., Abboud, P.-A. C., & Rubin, H. R. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.15.1458 · Cited by 6,677
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes
Ivers, N., Jamtvedt, G., Flottorp, S., Young, J. M., Odgaard-Jensen, J., French, S. D., O'Brien, M. A., Johansen, M., Grimshaw, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2012) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000259.pub3 · Cited by 5,485
Self-citationThe quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States
McGlynn, E. A., Asch, S. M., Adams, J., Keesey, J., Hicks, J., DeCristofaro, A., & Kerr, E. A. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmsa022615 · Cited by 5,079
Cane, J., O’Connor, D., & Michie, S. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-37 · Cited by 4,888
(2008) · Cited by 3,790
Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies
Grimshaw, J., Thomas, R., MacLennan, G., Fraser, C., Ramsay, C., Vale, L., Whitty, P., Eccles, M., Matowe, L., Shirran, L., et al. (2004) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta8060 · Cited by 3,044
Self-citationKnowledge translation of research findings
Grimshaw, J. M., Eccles, M. P., Lavis, J. N., Hill, S. J., & Squires, J. E. (2012) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-7-50 · Cited by 2,407
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- Samsa, 1998, A seven step model for practice improvement research: description and application to the managing anticoagulation services trial, New Medicine, 2, 139
- Fretheim, 2004, Improving prescribing of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs: a method for identifying and addressing barriers to change, BMC Health Services Research, 4, 23, 10.1186/1472-6963-4-23 · DOI · Paper page
- Murphy, 2005, The SPHERE study. Secondary prevention of heart disease in general practice: protocol of a randomised controlled trial of tailored practice and patient care plans with parallel qualitative, economic and policy analyses, Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine, 6, 11, 10.1186/1468-6708-6-11 · DOI
- Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group: Data Collection Checklist EPOC resources for review authors (http://www.epoc.cochrane.org/en/handsearchers.html) Revised 2002
- Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group, 2014, What outcomes should be reported in EPOC reviews?
- Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy Early Review Organizing Software (EROS) 2009
- Lefebvre C Manheimer E Glanville J Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org
- Lomas, 1994, Teaching old (and not so old) dogs new tricks: effective ways to implement research findings, 1
- Légaré, 2009, Assessing barriers and facilitators to knowledge use, 83
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–700 of 711
Translating Knowledge to Improve Pain Management Practices for Older Adults
Coker, E., & Kaasalainen, S. (2018) · Perspectives in nursing management and care for older adults · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-71694-7_10
Employing E-Learning to promote smoking cessation care
de Ruijter, D. (2018) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20181107dr
“, 2007), but a similar intervention for PNs is still lacking (Baker et al., 2015).”
BackgroundA how-to guide to aphasia services: celebrating Professor Linda Worrall’s contribution to the field
Wallace, S. J., Baker, C., Brandenburg, C., Bryant, L., Dorze, G. L., Power, E., Pritchard, M., Rose, M. L., Rose, T., Ryan, B., et al. (2019) · Aphasiology · doi:10.1080/02687038.2019.1609774
“A critical next step is the identification of local barriers and facilitators to evidence uptake, so that strategies to improve practice are tailored to the known barriers (Baker et al., 2015).”
BackgroundReichenpfader, U. (2019) · Linköping University medical dissertations · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-156274
“A structured approach for designing ‘tailored interventions’ is recommended, choosing strategies responding to identified ‘determinants of practice’ (Baker et al., 2015).”
BackgroundHow to move forward with evidence-based practice in nursing
Storms, F. (2019) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20190614jfs
Maximizing research value: adequate reporting and effective (de-)implementation strategies
Heus, P. (2020) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) · doi:10.33540/8
Carlfjord, S., Malmberg, E., & Skoglund, C. (2020) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-020-05696-3
How to contextualize training on guideline‐uptake for your setting
Stander, J., Grimmer, K. A., & Brink, Y. (2020) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.13476
Patel, S. A., Vashist, K., Jarhyan, P., Sharma, H., Gupta, P., Jindal, D., Venkateshmurthy, N. S., Pfadenhauer, L. M., Mohan, S., & Tandon, N. (2020) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-125013/v1
Using the Ottawa Model of Research Use to Discuss HTA Development
Beretta, V. (2021) · Contributions to management science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-70308-0_6
Implementierungsstudie zur neuen Multiple Sklerose Leitlinie
Mokry, C., Warnke, C., Gehring, K., Hegen, H., Salmen, A., Krämer, M., Kleiter, I., Faßhauer, E., Scheiderbauer, J., Berthele, A., et al. (2021) · DGNeurologie · doi:10.1007/s42451-021-00344-4
Wallis, M. C., Craswell, A., Marsden, E. J., & Taylor, A. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-779354/v1
Kim, J., Estabrooks, P. A., Aggarwal, A., McMillan, A., & Alshehri, K. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-934240/v1
Bravington, A., Chen, H., Dyson, J., Jones, L., Dalgleish, C., Bryan, A., Patnick, J., & Macleod, U. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-956239/v1
Zhukova, V. M., & Fadin, V. P. (1981) · NASA STI Repository (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
Vogel, R. (2022) · Research Publications (Maastricht University) · doi:10.26481/dis.20220204rv
Zbukvic, I., Rheinberger, D., Rosebrock, H., Lim, J., McGillivray, L., Mok, K., Stamate, E., McGill, K., Shand, F., Torok, M. H., et al. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-142115/v1
Santesson, A. H. E., Jarbin, H., Holmberg, R. G., Perrin, S. G., & Bäckström, M. (2019) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.2.11062/v1
“Different strategies are then selected and matched to address these determinants for change (7, 9-12).”
BackgroundRegauer, V., Seckler, E., Campbell, C., Phillips, A., Rotter, T., Bauer, P., & Müller, M. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-216445/v1
Complexe implementatiestrategieën
Hulscher, M., Wensing, M., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2017) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-1732-5_18
Self-citation(2017) · Krankenhaus-Hygiene + Infektionsverhütung · doi:10.1016/j.khinf.2017.05.009
Beïnvloedende factoren bij implementatie
Wensing, M., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2017) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-1732-5_8
Self-citationKim, J., Estabrooks, P. A., Aggarwal, A., McMillan, A., & Alshehri, K. (2021) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-934240/v2
Bass, G. D., Levy, E. P., Westover, J. E., Ndebele‐Ngwenya, P., Taichman, R. B., Costa, D. K., Weiss, C. H., Lane-Fall, M. B., & Kerlin, M. P. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1713396/v1
ADHD Training for Primary Care Professionals
French, B. (2022) · IntechOpen eBooks · doi:10.5772/intechopen.104998
Ewoldt, T. M. J., Abdulla, A., van den Broek, P., Hunfeld, N., Bahmany, S., Muller, A. E., Gommers, D. A. M. P. J., Polinder, S., Endeman, H., Spronk, I., et al. (2022) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1213794/v1
Safety and Quality in Maternal and Neonatal Care: Any Progress since Ignaz Semmelweis?
Vendittelli, F. (2022) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare10101876
“More research is needed to understand the reasons for gaps in clinical practices and to identify interventions to address them [32].”
BackgroundMoving towards better care for hospitalized older adults
Scheerman, K. (2022) · doi:10.5463/thesis.62
Beïnvloedende factoren bij implementatie
Wensing, M., & Grol, R. P. T. M. (2023) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-2909-0_8
Self-citationComplexe implementatiestrategieën
Hulscher, M., & Wensing, M. (2023) · Bohn Stafleu van Loghum eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-90-368-2909-0_18
Self-citationPalm, K., Kronlid, C., Brantnell, A., Elf, M., & Borg, J. (2023) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/44562
“Still, on many occasions, connecting factors with suitable implementation strategies is rare [22], and the usual approach has long been to study factors and implementation strategies independently from each other, which implies that our knowledge of effective implementation strategies is incomplete [23].”
BackgroundKrosta, K. M. E., Tomsic, I., Stolz, M., Krauth, C., Chaberny, I. F., & von Lengerke, T. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3199535/v1
Ananthakrishnan, M. , & Chaitra, C. M. (2023) · International Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · doi:10.36948/ijfmr.2023.v05i04.5431
Selecting De‐Implementation Strategies and Designing Interventions
Presseau, J., McCleary, N., Patey, A. M., McHugh, S., & Lorencatto, F. (2023) · doi:10.1002/9781119862758.ch9
Engaging Women in Decisions About Their Heart Health
Lewis, K. B., Ahmed, F., Lauck, S., Carroll, S. L., & Stacey, D. (2023) · Advances in biochemistry in health and disease · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-39928-2_22
Krosta, K. M. E., Tomsic, I., Stolz, M., Krauth, C., Chaberny, I. F., & von Lengerke, T. (2023) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3199535/v2
Risk Groups by the Needs for Help: Asian American Breast Cancer Survivors
Chee, W., Yi, J., & Im, E. (2024) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-024-02411-2
“Yet, targeting specific risk groups would be a cost-effective strategy to approach this specific population [7].”
A Rapid Realist Review on Leadership and Career Advancement Interventions for Women in HealthcarePreprint
Mucheru, D., Gilmore, B., Kesale, A. M., & McAuliffe, É. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4305829/v1
Karemaker, M. (2024) · doi:10.26481/dis.20240604mk
da Silva, J. G. S. T., Pagano, R., da Silva, L. R., Khouri, F. J. E., Tokunaga, S. M., Torreglosa, C. R., Barreto, J. O. M., Lara, E. M. D. S., Santos, R. H. N., Marcadenti, A., et al. (2024) · Revista Contexto & Saúde · doi:10.21527/2176-7114.2024.48.14630
Nettelrodt, K. M. E., Tomsic, I., Stolz, M., Krauth, C., Chaberny, I. F., & von Lengerke, T. (2024) · Psychology Research and Behavior Management · doi:10.2147/prbm.s464335
“6,7 Therefore, psychosocial determinants that influence compliance should be identified to inform design of interventions.”
BackgroundCorcuff, M., Routhier, F., & Lamontagne, M. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.09.17.24313810
“Indeed, the literature reports that the combined use of participatory workshops and postcard reminders to develop an overall implementation strategy is more effective to the adoption, implementation, and sustainability of an intervention [36-40].”
Cárdenas-Cortés, A. M., Vega, M. A. M., Hernández-Torres, J. L., & Rodríguez-Vázquez, N. (2024) · Estudios y Perspectivas Revista Científica y Académica · doi:10.61384/r.c.a..v4i3.587 · Cited by 1
Body Image and Posttraumatic Growth : Overcoming Physical Changes in Brain Tumor Patients
Rajesh, N., Shah, M., Boccia, M. L., & Yoo, J.-J. (2024) · International Journal of Costume and Fashion · doi:10.7233/ijcf.2024.24.2.041
Bertolaccini, L., Bardoni, C., Caffarena, G., Chiari, M., Diotti, C., Mazzella, A., Benini, L., Spada, F., Corso, G., Pisa, E., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Cancer Prevention · doi:10.1097/cej.0000000000000949
“Engaging stakeholders ensures that guidelines address real-world concerns and foster user trust (Baker et al ., 2015).”
Chen, L., Yang, M., & Zhang, T. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-5857278/v1
Editorial: Aspiration management and rehabilitation
Palmer, P. M., & Leslie, P. (2025) · Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences · doi:10.3389/fresc.2025.1558680
Aydin, A., van Ballegooijen, W., Cornelisz, I., & Etzelmueller, A. (2025) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2025.1509415
“The analysis considered an expected small effect size (Cohen ’ s f = 0.10), as suggested by the literature on implementation strategies (31).”
InfluentialImplementation of a post-stroke upper limb outcome measure: A qualitative multiple case study
Choo, S., Yong, J., Rafi, S. A. B. M., Lum, E., & Thumboo, J. (2025) · Proceedings of Singapore Healthcare · doi:10.1177/20101058251318755
“12,22 Systematic reviews suggest that tailored implementation strategies improve healthcare professionals ’ adherence to clinical guidelines and to address barriers to change, 23 highlighting their potential to enhance the consistent use of recommended outcome measures.”
Traumatic Brain Injury and Criminal Justice
Reddy, K. J. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-83771-5_11
Nursing Interventions for Patients With Hypertension, Diabetes and Dyslipidemia: A Scoping Review
Wang, Y., Chen, W., Li, M., Zhou, L., Jin, Y., Jin, J., & Li, C. (2025) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.16889
Tong, W. T., Ng, C. J., Lee, Y. K., & Lee, P. Y. (2025) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-025-12588-x
“A systematic review has shown that tailored intervention to implementation is more effective than no intervention or a intervention not tailored to barriers [24].”
Eisman, A. B., Koffkey, C., Fridline, J., Harvey, C., Hasson, R. E., Palinkas, L. A., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2025) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895251330520 · Cited by 1
“Finally, while previous research suggests both the tailored intervention and training components can independently enhance implementation (Baker et al., 2015; Botvin et al., 2018), our focus is on evaluating the feasibility of the Enhanced REP package versus REP.”
KANEKO, A., & Kataoka, Y. (2025) · Journal of Japan Academy of Midwifery · doi:10.3418/jjam.jjam-2024-0044
Karachi, F., Maritz, J., Esterhuizen, T. M., Gosselink, R., & Hanekom, S. D. (2025) · Southern African Journal of Critical Care · doi:10.7196/sajcc.2695.v41i1.2695
Solutions of clinical guideline implementation in Iran: A qualitative study
Azizzadeh, M., Babaie, J., Janati, A., & Hajebrahimi, S. (2025) · Journal of Education and Health Promotion · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_1648_23 · Cited by 3
“[35,36] ] Also, regarding the effect of relationships between service providers on the implementation of clinical guidelines, in a study that took place in 2007, individual, organizational, and environmental factors were identified as effective factors in the implementation of clinical guidelines.”
Intention vs. Verhalten: Training zur Händehygiene-Compliance an Fallbeispielen
Dick, A., & Günther, F. (2025) · Krankenhaushygiene up2date · doi:10.1055/a-2277-6761
Biersack, K., Sattel, H. C., Schönweger, P., Kaspar, L., Lehnen, N., Gensichen, J. S., Henningsen, P., & the POKAL group (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0293713 · Cited by 1
Kincses, A., Turner, A., Fielding, A., Tapley, A., Davey, A., Moad, D., Holliday, E. G., Dizon, J., van Driel, M., & Magin, P. J. (2025) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70139
Rizvi, N., Iqbal, R., Jabeen, R., Harris, B., & Griffiths, F. E. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-082558 · Cited by 1
Wallis, J. A., Langford, A. V., O’Connor, D. A., Reeve, E., Ackerman, I. N., Haas, R., Docking, S., Cross, A. J., Turner, J. P., Johnston, R. V., et al. (2025) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016179
Corcuff, M., Routhier, F., & Lamontagne, M. (2025) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2025.106238
Kormelinck, C. M. G., Gerritsen, D. L., van Teunenbroek, C. F., de Boer, M. R., Smalbrugge, M., & Zuidema, S. U. (2025) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-025-06206-y
“…a result, ‘’one size fits all’’ standardized interventions are less likely to succeed and it is acknowledged that intervention and implementation should be tailored to emphasize the specific organizational contexts and addressing the culture, nature and characteristics of each organization [38–40].”
Al-Shammari, S. M. H. (2024) · International Journal of Advanced Community Medicine · doi:10.33545/comed.2024.v7.i3.c.398
Rogal, S. S., Yakovchenko, V., Morgan, T. R. M., Dominitz, J. A., McCurdy, H. M., Nobbe, A., Ekanem, N. R., Kang, C., Gonzalez, R. I., Park, A., et al. (2025) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-025-01448-1
“The study outcomes are illustrated in Table 2 and were mapped to the RE-AIM framework [68, 69].”
Wright, L., Meredith, P. J., & Bennett, S. H. (2025) · International Journal of Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/inm.70118
“The evidence that tailoring implementation strategies to address local contextual barriers to improve the use of evidence-based interventions improves the use of evidence-based interventions; however, results have been mixed (Baker et al. 2015).”
Pellecchia, M., Beidas, R. S., Tomczuk, L., Mandell, D. S., & Stahmer, A. C. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15091164
“Matching implementation strategies to specific contextual needs can change professional behavior and improve evidence-based practice implementation (Baker et al., 2015).”
Tranter, K. E., Harvey, L. A., Chu, J., Ilha, J., Ben, M., Chen, L. W., & Glinsky, J. V. (2025) · Spinal Cord Series and Cases · doi:10.1038/s41394-025-00719-9
“Tailored behaviour change interventions, that are guided by implementation theories, are effective in targeting speci fi c determinants of practice [3 – 5] and have been widely used to increase knowledge translation in other health conditions [6 – 11].”
Helmer, S. M., Matthias, K., Mergenthal, L., Reimer, M., & Santis, K. K. D. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26601658
Pereira, V. C., Silva, S. N., Vidal, Á. T., Lins, G. V. E., & Barreto, J. O. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26577275
Richter, C., Fleischer, S., Langner, H., Meyer, G., Balzer, K., Köpke, S., Sönnichsen, A. C., Löscher, S., & Berg, A. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20278989
Reszel, J., Daub, O., Dunn, S., Cassidy, C. E., Hafizi, K., Lightfoot, M., Pervez, D., Quosdorf, A., Wood, A., & Graham, I. D. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26628169
Reszel, J., Daub, O., Dunn, S., Cassidy, C. E., Hafizi, K., Lightfoot, M., Pervez, D., Quosdorf, A., Wood, A., & Graham, I. D. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26628166
Tomsic, I., Ebadi, E., Gossé, F., Hartlep, I., Schipper, P., Krauth, C., Schock, B. C., Chaberny, I. F., & von Lengerke, T. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14385145
Additional file 1 of An Ethnographic study of unhealthy alcohol use in a Danish Emergency Department
Sivertsen, D. M., Becker, U., Andersen, O., & Kirk, J. W. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.16726696
Tomsic, I., Ebadi, E., Gossé, F., Hartlep, I., Schipper, P., Krauth, C., Schock, B. C., Chaberny, I. F., & von Lengerke, T. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14385148
Pereira, V. C., Silva, S. N., Vidal, Á. T., Lins, G. V. E., & Barreto, J. O. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26577281
Ewoldt, T. M. J., Abdulla, A., van den Broek, P., Hunfeld, N., Bahmany, S., Muller, A. E., Gommers, D., Polinder, S., Endeman, H., Spronk, I., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20307967
Pereira, V. C., Silva, S. N., Vidal, Á. T., Lins, G. V. E., & Barreto, J. O. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26577284
Lopez, C. J., Jones, J. M., Campbell, K. L., Bender, J. L., Strudwick, G., Langelier, D. M., Reiman, T., Greenland, J., & Neil-Sztramko, S. E. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26660945
Pereira, V. C., Silva, S. N., Vidal, Á. T., Lins, G. V. E., & Barreto, J. O. M. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26577278
Dash, D., Schumacher, C., Jones, A., & Costa, A. P. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14576477
Lopez, C. J., Jones, J. M., Campbell, K. L., Bender, J. L., Strudwick, G., Langelier, D. M., Reiman, T., Greenland, J., & Neil-Sztramko, S. E. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26660948
Helmer, S. M., Matthias, K., Mergenthal, L., Reimer, M., & Santis, K. K. D. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26601661
Ewoldt, T. M. J., Abdulla, A., van den Broek, P., Hunfeld, N., Bahmany, S., Muller, A. E., Gommers, D., Polinder, S., Endeman, H., Spronk, I., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20307970
Tomsic, I., Ebadi, E., Gossé, F., Hartlep, I., Schipper, P., Krauth, C., Schock, B. C., Chaberny, I. F., & von Lengerke, T. (2021) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14385142
Richter, C., Fleischer, S., Langner, H., Meyer, G., Balzer, K., Köpke, S., Sönnichsen, A. C., Löscher, S., & Berg, A. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20278992
Moore, S. A., Padilla, V. E., Touati, S., & Lyon, A. R. (2026) · Journal of School Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2025.101525
Proceedings from the Fifth Annual Conference of the Norwegian Network for Implementation Research
Rasmussen, L. P., Peters, N., Roland, P., Ogden, T., Flottorp, S. A., & Lilleheie, I. (2026) · Global Implementation Research and Applications · doi:10.1007/s43477-026-00213-w
“…visits (O’Brien et al., 2007), local opinion leaders (Flodgren et al., 2019), tailored interven - tions to address determinants of practice (Baker et al., 2015), continuing education (Forsetlund et al., 2021), inter - professional education (Reeves et al., 2013) and printed educational…”
Self-citationGimigliano, F., Liguori, S., Arienti, C., Paoletta, M., Butzbach, O., Iolascon, G., Atkinson-Graham, M., Bakaa, N., Battel, I., Capodaglio, P., et al. (2026) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016327 · Cited by 1
Caci, L., Blum, K., Johnson, C. M., Albers, B., Clack, L., The REVERSE study group, Andritsos, A. R., Anghel, A.-M.-J., Antonelli, A., Antoniou, A., et al. (2026) · Implementation Science Communications · doi:10.1186/s43058-026-00884-4
“…characterized by relatively simple behaviors, lower need for collaboration, and minor dependence on data infrastructure, the selection of While the benefits of tailored strategies to local context seem intuitive, the synthesized evidence supporting tailoring effectiveness is small to moderate [61].”
Moore, S. A., Calder, J., Folorunsho, J., & Potthoff, S. (2026) · Disability and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09638288.2026.2649043
“However, when organisational strategies provided protected time and resources, these same factors facilitated implementation, highlighting the need for structured planning to enable workflow redesign and task reallocation [29].”
Purvis, T. L., Lynch, E. A., Marion, V., Morrison, J., Kilkenny, M. F., Middleton, S., & Cadilhac, D. A.-M. (2026) · International Journal of Health Policy and Management · doi:10.34172/ijhpm.9013
“16 Based on comparison with prior reviews 9,10,19 the results indicated a large effect size.”
Bjerk, M., Øien, H., Foy, R., Skelton, D. A., Flottorp, S. A., & Taraldsen, K. (2026) · Age and Ageing · doi:10.1093/ageing/afag089
Self-citationMcSween, M., Dignam, J. K., Shrubsole, K., Levine, R., Power, E., Lannin, N. A., Wallace, S. J., Cadilhac, D. A.-M., Kilkenny, M. F., Hill, A. J., et al. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2026-117575
“28 Trebilcock et al 29 identified barriers to global implementation of intensive aphasia services, with Shrubsole et al 30 more recently investigating barriers to a previous iteration of CHAT (ie, the Aphasia Language, Impairment and Functional Therapy (Aphasia LIFT) programme), highlighting issues…”
Khoiry, Q. A., Alfian, S. D., van Boven, J. F. M., Jatnika, R., & Abdulah, R. (2026) · Patient Preference and Adherence · doi:10.2147/ppa.s602433
“63,64 Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions One of the main strengths of this study lies in its psychometric development and evaluation, conducted in accordance with established methodological standards, ensuring the reliability and validity of the newly developed medication adherence scale.”
Vico-Rodríguez, P., Aibar‐Almazán, A., Hita‐Contreras, F., Márquez, M. A., Gámez-Iruela, J., Cano-Orihuela, M., & Castellote‐Caballero, Y. (2026) · BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders · doi:10.1186/s12891-026-10035-4
“This lack of clarity regarding the effects of different exercise approaches limits healthcare professionals’ ability to select evidence-based interventions tailored to the specific needs of each patient [14].”
Tauscher, J. S., Larsen, A., Struve, G., Brian, R., Guler, J., & Ben‐Zeev, D. (2026) · Community Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10597-026-01668-9
Metadata
- Authors
- Baker, R., Camosso-Stefinovic, J., Gillies, C., Shaw, E. J., Cheater, F., Flottorp, S., Robertson, N., Wensing, M., Fiander, M., Eccles, M. P., Godycki-Cwirko, M., van Lieshout, J., & Jäger, C.
- Affiliations
- University of Leicester (GB)
- Information Specialist, Consultant; Carl-Zeiss-Str. 37 Munich Bayern Germany D-85521
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (GB)
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Nasjonalt Kunnskapssenter for Helsetjenesten (NO)
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- Information Specialist, Consultant; Ottawa Ontario Canada
- Newcastle University (GB)
- Medical University of Lodz; Centre for Family and Community Medicine; Kopcindkiego 20 Lodz Poland 90-153
- Radboud University Medical Center; Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare; P.O.Box 9101 Nijmegen Netherlands 6500 HB
- University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
- ORCID
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2015-04-29
- Volume
- 2015
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- CD005470-CD005470
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- 1465-1858
- PMC
- PMC7271646
- OpenAlex
- W1579988526
- Semantic Scholar
- 52e02ec2b5cec8f59fbeeeed8279ed71182912ca
- Cited by
- 711
- References
- 222
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 91 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 83 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 57 · 2018: 48 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 16
- FWCI
- 8.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2026-02-27)
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- personalized interventions, implementation strategies, health care outcomes, theory-based intervention, risk of bias, nursing practice, primary care practices, quality improvement, meta-regression, risk of bias assessment, risk of bias adjustment
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Professional Practice, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
