Assessing the completeness of reporting of exercise-based interventions in cardiovascular trials
Freccia, G. W.; dos Santos, R. Z.; de Lucca, L.; Korbes, A. S.; de Carvalho, T.
Show abstract
Study ObjectiveIn cardiology, the reporting of interventions is insufficiently detailed to elicit replication. Specifically for cardiovascular rehabilitation (CVR) trials, the quality of the description of its exercise-based interventions (EBI) is poorly known. Our primary objective is to estimate the adherence of EBI of CVR trials to TIDieR reporting guideline. Secondarily, we tested whether the CVR setting would be associated with a better reporting, also exploring whether transparency and methodological characteristics could be related. Design and SettingThis cross-sectional study analysed 96 trials with EBI published within CVR literature. For our primary objective, TIDieR reporting guideline was accounted as a reference to assess overall adherence of eligible RCTs. For our secondary objectives we used generalised estimating equations to point out (a) if intervention setting (eg, home-based vs. centre-based) was associated with intervention reporting, and (b) if trials transparency and methodological characteristics would be associated with intervention reporting. ResultsOn average, arms adequately reported 4.8/12 (SD=2.4) TIDieR items. 65.07% of our EBI arms failed to adequately report [≥] 6 TIDieR items. Three of 146 (2.05%) arms adhered to all 12 TIDieR items. Additionally, intervention setting was not associated with a better description. ConclusionsWe concluded that EBIs in CVR lack to report fundamental aspects of the interventions to be replicated by third parties based on their reports. O_TEXTBOXHighlights O_LIWe found an inadequate and insufficient exercise-based interventions reporting of cardiovascular rehabilitation trials. C_LIO_LIOverall, about 40% of TIDieR reporting guideline adherence was found, with most interventions reporting its items improperly. C_LIO_LIExercise-based intervention care setting (home- and centre-based) have no association with a better intervention description. C_LIO_LIStudies with 2 or more EBI arms are associated with a poor TIDieR adherence. C_LIO_LIPublishers and Editorial committees may guide cardiology journals for a better intervention reporting. C_LI C_TEXTBOX
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Face-to-face interventions to encourage enrolment in cardiac rehabilitation; a scoping review protocol 96%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 96%
- Reporting of Retrospective Registration in Clinical Trial Publications 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 95%
- Efficacy of Acupuncture on Lower Limb Motor Dysfunction Following Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. 95%
- Effectiveness of aerobic physical exercise on depression symptoms in adults: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Erroneous risks in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions during data extraction in evidence synthesis practice: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 96%
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 93%
- The IGNITE Trial: Participant Recruitment Lessons Prior to SARS-CoV-2 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 97%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 97%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.