Introduction: The accurate reproduction of clinical interventions and the evaluation of provider adherence in research publications improve the evaluation and implementation of research findings into clinical practice. We sought to examine the proportion of clinical pathway publications in an emergency department setting that adequately reported the following: (1) the exact reproduction of the clinical pathway that was implemented in the study, (2) the adherence to and correct execution of the clinical pathway intervention, and (3) the presence of a pre-implementation education phase. Methods: We performed a descriptive systematic review of the literature from 2006 to 2015 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. All types of prospective trial designs were eligible. Validated clinical pathway criteria were used to identify relevant publications. Two reviewers independently collected data using a piloted data abstraction tool. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: We identified 5947 publications, 44 of which met our inclusion criteria. The formal clinical pathway was fully reproduced in 27 (61%) publications, partially reproduced in 9 (21%), and not reproduced in 8 (18%). Only 14 (32%) studies reported whether at least one decision step was executed correctly. The presence of a pre-implementation education phase was reported in 33 (75%) studies. Conclusion: The underreporting of intervention elements may present a barrier to both the evaluation and accurate replication of clinical pathway interventions. These finding may be useful for the elaboration of complex intervention reporting guidelines, improved reporting in future clinical pathway publications, and improved knowledge translation and exchange of clinical pathway interventions.

Background: Heterogeneity in both the definition and terminology of clinical pathways presents a challenge to the systematic identification of primary studies for review purposes. Recently developed clinical pathway identification criteria may facilitate both the identification and assessment of clinical pathway studies. The goal of this publication is the validation of these five criteria in a descriptive systematic review of actively implemented clinical pathway studies in the emergency department setting. The main outcome measure is the inter-rater agreement of investigators using the clinical pathway criteria. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search from 2006 to 2015 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and CINAHL. All types of prospective trial designs were eligible. We identified relevant publications using the above-mentioned clinical pathway criteria. Two reviewers independently collected data using a piloted data abstraction tool. Results: We identified 5947 publications, with 472 potentially relevant full text publications retrieved. Of these, 357 did not meet preliminary study inclusion criteria, leaving 115 publications where the clinical pathway criteria were applied. Ultimately, 44 publications were included. The inter-rater agreement of the criteria was very good (k ¼ 0.81, 95% Confidence Interval ¼ 0.70-0.92). The vast majority of studies were excluded because the intervention did not meet the criterion of being multidisciplinary in nature. Conclusion: These criteria are a useful instrument to reliably identify clinical pathway publications for systematic review purposes in an emergency department setting. Future modification of these criteria may improve their usefulness. Particular attention should be placed on clarifying what is meant by multidisciplinary involvement within the context of clinical pathway interventions, with specific emphasis placed on delineating the level of involvement of each discipline and their decision-making responsibility.