Cited by 76Delphi Technique in ResearchMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsPhysical Activity and Health

i-CONTENT tool for assessing therapeutic quality of exercise programs employed in randomised clinical trials

Open access
Hoogeboom, Thomas J, Kousemaker, Martijn C, van Meeteren, Nico LU, Howe, Tracey, Bo, Kari, Tugwell, Peter, Ferreira, Manuela, de Bie, Rob A +2 more·2021·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Objective: When appraising the quality of randomised clinical trial (RCTs) on the merits of exercise therapy, we typically limit our assessment to the quality of the methods. However, heterogeneity across studies can also be caused by differences in the quality of the exercise interventions (ie, ‘the potential effectiveness of a specific intervention given the potential target group of patients’)—a challenging concept to assess. We propose an internationally developed, consensus-based tool that aims to assess the quality of exercise therapy programmes studied in RCTs: the international Consensus on Therapeutic Exercise aNd Training (i-CONTENT) tool. Methods: Forty-nine experts (from 12 different countries) in the field of physical and exercise therapy participated in a four-stage Delphi approach to develop the i-CONTENT tool: (1) item generation (Delphi round 1), (2) item selection (Delphi rounds 2 and 3), (3) item specification (focus group discussion) and (4) tool development and refinement (working group discussion and piloting). Results: Out of the 61 items generated in the first Delphi round, consensus was reached on 17 items, resulting in seven final items that form the i-CONTENT tool: (1) patient selection; (2) qualified supervisor; (3) type and timing of outcome assessment; (4) dosage parameters (frequency, intensity, time); (5) type of exercise; (6) safety of the exercise programme and (7) adherence to the exercise programme. Conclusion: The i-CONTENT-tool is a step towards transparent assessment of the quality of exercise therapy programmes studied in RCTs, and ultimately, towards the development of future, higher quality, exercise interventions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsports-2019-101630

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Lack of large effect sizes can be attributed to low training dosage (mode of exercise, frequency, intensity, duration and adherence to training).

    “Lack of large effect sizes can be attributed to low training dosage (mode of exercise, frequency, intensity, duration and adherence to training) [76].”

    From International urogynecology consultation chapter 3 committee 2; conservative treatment of patient with pelvic organ prolapse: Pelvic floor muscle training (2022) · cites this paper as [76]

    The Concluding remarks state that exercise dosage and type affect effectiveness through a dose–response relationship. The Results checklist also treats frequency, intensity, time, and adherence as relevant to whether an exercise programme achieves its intended effect. But the paper does not establish that low training dosage caused the particular lack of large effect sizes asserted in the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [5]ACSM. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. Lippincott Williams And Wilkins, 2013: 480.
  2. [12]Abell B, Glasziou P, Hoffmann T. Reporting and replicating trials of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: do we know what the researchers actually did? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2015; 8: 187– 94. 25737485
  3. [22]Therapeutic validity of exercise therapy in RCTs. Puijo symposium; 2014; Kuopio.
  4. [24]Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51: 1235– 41. 10086815
  5. [40]McGinn TG, Guyatt GH, Wyer PC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature: XXII: how to use articles about clinical decision rules. JAMA 2000; 284: 79– 84. 10872017
  6. [54]Campbell SM, Hann M, Roland MO, et al. The effect of panel membership and feedback on ratings in a two-round Delphi survey: results of a randomized controlled trial. Med Care 1999; 37: 964– 8. 10493474

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoogeboom, T. J., Kousemaker, M. C., van Meeteren, N. L., Howe, T., Bo, K., Tugwell, P., Ferreira, M., de Bie, R. A., van den Ende, C. H., & Stevens-Lapsley, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
  • Cochrane Canada (CA)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Hoogeboom, Thomas J
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-11-03
Volume
55
Issue
20
Pages
1153-1160
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W3096840688
Cited by
76
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 6
FWCI
12.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
exercise therapy, randomized controlled trials, exercise safety, exercise adherence, patient selection, supervised exercise, Delphi consensus
MeSH terms
Delphi Technique, Exercise Therapy, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Consensus

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.

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