No abstract

Background Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions. Methods and findings We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator.

No abstract

Why overdiagnosis is hard to spot and to explain to individuals

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting. The resultant 12-item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who intervened, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actually carried out)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with a detailed explanation of each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure the accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

In many areas of medicine the rapid accumulation of evidence is unmanageable. The covid-19 pandemic has further accelerated the production of research and produced an urgent need for timely access to high quality, up-to-date syntheses of this evidence. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the best way to aggregate and appraise studies that examine a particular research question, but they take time to produce. Even when published rapidly, they may lag behind accumulated evidence by months or years. Living systematic reviews overcome this problem by allowing authors to update previously vetted and peer reviewed evidence syntheses in response to relevant new information. 1 2 The BMJ's first living systematic review, evaluating prognostic models in covid-19, was published in April 2020 and has already been updated twice. 3 Our second living review is a network meta-analysis of treatments for covid-19, which underpins several accompanying rapid recommendations and is accompanied by an infographic

No abstract

No abstract