Cited by 52Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Policy Implementation ScienceAcademic Publishing and Open Access

Active ingredients are reported more often for pharmacologic than non-pharmacologic interventions: an illustrative review of reporting practices in titles and abstracts

Open access
McCleary, Nicola, Duncan, Eilidh M, Stewart, Fiona, Francis, Jill J·2013·Trials

Abstract

Key components of healthcare interventions include 'active ingredients' (intervention components that can be specifically linked to effects on outcomes such that, were they omitted, the intervention would be ineffective). These should be reported in titles and abstracts of published reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, reporting of non-pharmacologic interventions (NPIs), particularly behaviour change interventions (BCIs), is difficult, owing to their complexity. This illustrative review compares how pharmacologic interventions (PIs), NPIs and BCIs are specified in titles and abstracts to clarify how reporting of NPIs and BCIs can be improved. MEDLINE and Embase were searched for RCTs published in the British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet and Annals of Behavioral Medicine from 2009 to March 2011. All types of intervention, participant and outcome were included. A random sample of 198 studies (sampled proportionally from included journals) stratified by intervention type (PI/NPI) was taken: 98 evaluated PIs, 96 evaluated NPIs and four evaluated both. Studies were coded for the presence or absence of key components. The frequency data were analyzed using the chi-square test. Active ingredients were named in 88% titles and 95% abstracts of PI reports, and in 51% titles and 71% abstracts of NPI reports, with a significant association between intervention type and reporting of active ingredients in titles (χ2(1) = 28.90; P < 0.001) and abstracts (χ2(1) = 16.94; P < 0.001). Active ingredients were named in BCI reports in 37% titles and 56% abstracts, and in other NPI reports in 66% titles and 86% abstracts. There was also a significant association between intervention type and reporting of active ingredients in titles (χ2(1) = 6.68; P = 0.010) and abstracts (χ2(1) = 8.66; P = 0.003). Reporting practices also differed for such components as the trial setting and intervention provider. This review highlights the need for improved reporting of NPIs (particularly BCIs) and indicates that a set of agreed labels and definitions for complex NPIs could facilitate standardized reporting. This would ensure that interventions can be faithfully replicated and that evidence for interventions can be appropriately synthesized.

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 · 10.1186/1745-6215-14-146

Cites

30 of 30 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

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Boutron I Ravaud P Boutron I, Ravaud P, Moher D Reporting guidelines for nonpharmacological trials Randomized Clinical Trials of Nonpharmacological Treatments 2012 Florida: Chapman & Hall/CRC Press 199 210
  2. Thomson R ISI Web of Knowledge: Journal Citation Reports [ http://admin-apps.webofknowledge.com/JCR/JCR]
  3. Higgins JPT Deeks JJ Higgins JPT, Green S Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 2011 London: The Cochrane Collaboration [ http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/]
  4. Petrie A Sabin C Medical Statistics at a Glance 2005 2 Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
  5. Annals of Behavioral Medicine Instructions for Authors [ http://www.springer.com/medicine/journal/12160]
  6. The British Medical Journal Resources for Authors: Types of Article: Research [ http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors]
  7. JAMA Instructions for Authors [ http://jama.jamanetwork.com/public/instructionsForAuthors.aspx]
  8. The New England Journal of Medicine Author Center New Manuscripts [ http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/manuscript-submission]
  9. The Lancet Information for Authors: Types of Article and Manuscript Requirements [ http://www.thelancet.com/lancet-information-for-authors/article-types-manuscript-requirements]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCleary, N., Duncan, E. M., Stewart, F., & Francis, J. J.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
McCleary, Nicola
Venue
Trials
Published
2013
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
146
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2147490738
Cited by
52
References
32
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Aberdeen University Research Archive (Aberdeen University) (submittedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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
active ingredients, intervention reporting, non-pharmacological treatment, behaviour change interventions, pharmacological interventions, randomized controlled trials, reporting quality, intervention components, complex interventions, health information security, health information privacy, health data governance
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Behavior Therapy, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Periodicals as Topic, Bibliometrics, Chi-Square Distribution, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Guidelines as Topic, Comprehension, Information Dissemination

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