Literature DB >> 21771302

Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.

Alan A Montgomery1, Margaret P Astin, Tim J Peters.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation.
RESULTS: We identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials.
CONCLUSIONS: Reports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21771302      PMCID: PMC3157424          DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-179

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trials        ISSN: 1745-6215            Impact factor:   2.279


  6 in total

1.  CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.

Authors:  David Moher; Sally Hopewell; Kenneth F Schulz; Victor Montori; Peter C Gøtzsche; P J Devereaux; Diana Elbourne; Matthias Egger; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2010-03-23

2.  Role of hospitals in NHS must not be undervalued.

Authors:  A Majeed
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-12-12

Review 3.  Analysis and reporting of factorial trials: a systematic review.

Authors:  Finlay A McAlister; Sharon E Straus; David L Sackett; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-05-21       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Design, analysis, and presentation of crossover trials.

Authors:  Edward J Mills; An-Wen Chan; Ping Wu; Andy Vail; Gordon H Guyatt; Douglas G Altman
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2009-04-30       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance.

Authors:  Peter Craig; Paul Dieppe; Sally Macintyre; Susan Michie; Irwin Nazareth; Mark Petticrew
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-09-29

6.  Design, analysis and presentation of factorial randomised controlled trials.

Authors:  Alan A Montgomery; Tim J Peters; Paul Little
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2003-11-24       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total
  6 in total

Review 1.  Enhancing primary reports of randomized controlled trials: Three most common challenges and suggested solutions.

Authors:  Guowei Li; Meha Bhatt; Mei Wang; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Zainab Samaan; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-12       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 2.  Does the medical literature remain inadequately described despite having reporting guidelines for 21 years? - A systematic review of reviews: an update.

Authors:  Yanling Jin; Nitika Sanger; Ieta Shams; Candice Luo; Hamnah Shahid; Guowei Li; Meha Bhatt; Laura Zielinski; Bianca Bantoto; Mei Wang; Luciana Pf Abbade; Ikunna Nwosu; Alvin Leenus; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Muhammad Maaz; Yaping Chang; Guangwen Sun; Mitchell Ah Levine; Jonathan D Adachi; Lehana Thabane; Zainab Samaan
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2018-09-27

3.  Online randomized controlled experiments at scale: lessons and extensions to medicine.

Authors:  Ron Kohavi; Diane Tang; Ya Xu; Lars G Hemkens; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2020-02-07       Impact factor: 2.279

4.  Estimands for factorial trials.

Authors:  Brennan C Kahan; Tim P Morris; Beatriz Goulão; James Carpenter
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-06-25       Impact factor: 2.497

5.  A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.

Authors:  Zainab Samaan; Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Daisy Kosa; Victoria Borg Debono; Rejane Dillenburg; Shiyuan Zhang; Vincent Fruci; Brittany Dennis; Monica Bawor; Lehana Thabane
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2013-05-06

6.  A systematic approach to designing statistically powerful heteroscedastic 2 × 2 factorial studies while minimizing financial costs.

Authors:  Show-Li Jan; Gwowen Shieh
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 4.615

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.