Cited by 381Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials

Open access
Hoffmann, T. C., Erueti, C., Glasziou, P. P.·2013·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details. DESIGN: Analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: All reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria. DATA COLLECTION: Using an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed. RESULTS: Of 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the "intervention materials" (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Missing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications.

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/bmj.f3755

Cites

19 of 19 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?

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoffmann, T. C., Erueti, C., & Glasziou, P. P.
Affiliations
Bond University (AU)
Corresponding author
Hoffmann, T. C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-09-10
Volume
347
Issue
sep10 1
Pages
f3755-f3755
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2074589655
Cited by
375
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 5
FWCI
34.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • e-publications@bond (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • University College London
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (527500, 1033038)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
Keywords
non-pharmacological treatment, intervention description, reporting completeness, randomised trials, trial reports, intervention materials, research waste, reproducibility, author response, research funding
MeSH terms
Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Biomedical Research, Research Report

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