Previous studies of adequacy of descriptions of treatments in trials
| Clinical issue | Number of trials | Number (%) replicable | Methods of deciding replicability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weight loss interventions3 | 63 | 62 (98) | Compliance with item 4 of CONSORT statement* |
| Treatments of brain tumours4 | 74 | 68 (92) | Compliance with item 4 of CONSORT statement* |
| Treatments of Hodgkin's lymphoma5 | 241 | 231 (96) | Compliance with item 4 of CONSORT statement* |
| Back pain6 | 24 | 3 (13) | Sufficient information on what happens before, during and after treatment |
| Implementation of guidelines7 | 29 | <7 (16) | Assessed 6 elements: flexibility, timing, content, medium, deliverer and receiver. There is not an overall adequacy rating, but none was 100% and only 7/29 provided timing |
| Insulin initiation in type 2 diabetes8 | 14 | 3 (21) | Provision of both starting dose and titration regime |
| Surgical procedures intended9 | 158 | 138 (87) | Only required that “some” detail was provided, not sufficient for replication; 41% also provided some detail on actual surgery administered |
| Range of topics published in Evidence-Based Medicine Journal10 | 55 | 36 (65) | Two general practitioners were independently asked whether they could use the treatment with a patient if they saw them the next day |
*Item 4 is: ‘Precise details of the treatments intended for each group and how and when they were actually administered’.
Note: Each element is fully described in table 2.