Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature: Is evidence from randomized trials useable?

Ludemann, A; Power, E; Hoffmann, TC

Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature: Is evidence from randomized trials useable?

Ludemann, A Power, E

Hoffmann, TC

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2017, 26 (2), pp. 443 - 455
Issue Date:: 2017-05-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Ludemann_et_al-2017-American_Journal_of_Speech-Language_Pathology.pdf	Published Version	507.39 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Ludemann, A	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Power, E https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2638-0406	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Hoffmann, TC	en_US
dc.date.available	2016-12-01	en_US
dc.date.issued	2017-05-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2017, 26 (2), pp. 443 - 455	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1058-0360	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/127817
dc.description.abstract	© 2017 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method: A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results: No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28% of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25% and 13% of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18%). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100% of articles); rationale (96%); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69%). Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0035	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Speech-Language Pathology & Audiology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Speech-Language Pathology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Publishing	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Outcome and Process Assessment (Health Care)	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Evidence-Based Practice	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Translational Medical Research	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care	en_US
dc.title	Investigating the adequacy of intervention descriptions in recent speech-language pathology literature: Is evidence from randomized trials useable?	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	26	en_US
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	1702 Cognitive Sciences	en_US
utslib.for	2004 Linguistics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Graduate School of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	26	en_US

Abstract:

© 2017 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Purpose: To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method: A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results: No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28% of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25% and 13% of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18%). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100% of articles); rationale (96%); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69%). Conclusions: Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/127817