Study design: A secondary analysis of a systematic review. Background: Manipulations or mobilizations are commonly used interventions in patients with mechanical neck pain. The treatment effects have often been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCT) which are generally considered the gold standard in evaluating the treatment effects, mainly due to its high internal validity. External validity is defined as the extent to which the effects can be generalised to clinical practice. An important prerequisite for this is that interventions used in clinical trials can be replicated in clinical practice. It can be questioned if interventions utilized in randomized controlled trials can be translated into clinical practice. Objectives: The overall aim of this study is to examine whether the quality of the description of manipulation and mobilization interventions is sufficient for to replication of these interventions in clinical practice. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed. Two independent researchers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) which is a 12-item checklist for describing the completeness of the interventions. Results: Sixty-seven articles were included that used manipulation and/or mobilization interventions for patients with mechanical neck pain. None of the articles describe the intervention e.g. all the items on the TIDieR list. Considering item 8 (a-f) of the TIDieR checklist only one article described the used techniques completely. Conclusion: Manipulation or a mobilization interventions are poorly reported in RCTs, which jeopardize the external validity of RCTs, making it difficult for clinicians and researchers to replicate these interventions.
LINK
Background Children with developmental language disorders (DLD) face ongoing challenges in language and communication, impacting their learning, literacy, social interactions, and emotional well-being. Speech and language therapy interventions have been shown to positively influence the language abilities and communication skills of children with DLD. However, these interventions are often not described in full detail, hindering effective implementation, replication, and the advancement of knowledge. Method We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide to describe the ENGAGE tool, which supports shared decision-making between parents and SLTs about communicative participation goals for children with DLD. The description was based on the development process, the ENGAGE user manual, and an interview study on its impact on SLT practice. Results We provided a detailed description of the ENGAGE intervention using the 12 items from the TIDieR checklist and guide, facilitating easier implementation and replication. Discussion Reflecting on our findings, we discussed the evolution of shared decision-making models, comparing Elwyn et al.'s (2012) model with the updated goal-based model by Elwyn & Vermunt (2020). The new model highlights the importance of collaborative goal setting in speech and language therapy. Our findings suggest that the ENGAGE tool aligns well with the latest theoretical advancements in shared decision-making.
DOCUMENT
To assess the reporting quality of interventions aiming at promoting physical activity (PA) using a wearable activity tracker (WAT) in patients with infammatory arthritis (IA) or hip/knee osteoarthritis (OA). A systematic search was performed in eight databases including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) for studies published between 2000 and 2022. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics and the reporting of the PA intervention using a WAT using the Consensus on Exercise reporting Template (CERT) (12 items) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) E-Health checklist (16 items). The reporting quality of each study was expressed as a percentage of reported items of the total CERT and CONSORT E-Health (50% or less=poor; 51–79%=moderate; and 80–100%=good reporting quality). Sixteen studies were included; three involved patients with IA and 13 with OA. Reporting quality was poor in 6/16 studies and moderate in 10/16 studies, according to the CERT and poor in 8/16 and moderate in 8/16 studies following the CONSORT E-Health checklist. Poorly reported checklist items included: the description of decision rule(s) for determining progression and the starting level, the number of adverse events and how adherence or fdelity was assessed. In clinical trials on PA interventions using a WAT in patients with IA or OA, the reporting quality of delivery process is moderate to poor. The poor reporting quality of the progression and tailoring of the PA programs makes replication difcult. Improvements in reporting quality are necessary.
DOCUMENT
