A systematic review of the quality of reporting in published smoking cessation trials for pregnant women: an explanation for the evidence-practice gap?

Abstract

BackgroundTo facilitate translation of evidence into clinical practice, it is critical that clear, specific, and detailed information about interventions is provided in publications to promote replication, appropriate aggregation in meta-analysis, and implementation. This study examined whether twenty elements of interventions deemed essential for such translational application were reported in sufficient detail in smoking cessation trials with pregnant women.MethodsSearches of electronic databases using MeSH terms and keywords identified peer-reviewed English language studies published between 2001 and 2012. Eligible studies reported a smoking cessation intervention targeted at pregnant women and met Cochrane’s Effective Practice and Organization of Care group study design criteria. Each intervention arm of eligible studies was assessed against the developed twenty criteria.ResultsThirty relevant studies reported the findings of 45 intervention arms. The mode of delivery of the intervention was reported in 100% of intervention arms. Other well-reported criteria included reporting of the provider who delivered the intervention (96%), sample characteristics (80%), and the intervention setting (80%). Criteria not reported adequately included care provided to women who relapse (96% not reported), details about training given to providers (77% not reported), and the method of quit advice advised (76% not reported). No studies reported 100% of relevant criteria.ConclusionsCurrent standards of reporting of intervention content and implementation are suboptimal. The use of smoking cessation specific checklists for reporting of trials, standard reporting using behaviour change taxonomies, and the publication of protocols as supplements should be considered as ways of improving the specificity of reporting.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0094-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Do we really know what they were testing? Incomplete reporting of interventions in randomised trials of upper limb therapies in unilateral cerebral palsy

“…Similar to previous findings (Abell, Glasziou, & Hoffmann, 2015;Bryant, Passey, Hall, & Sanson-Fisher, 2014;Hoffmann et al, 2013;Pino, Boutron, & Ravaud, 2012), our results highlight that details about the materials used in the delivery of interventions and in the training of intervention providers were the most poorly reported. Home programs were a key component in many upper limb studies, and one study directly investigated their efficacy (Novak, Cusick, & Lannin, 2009).…”

Evolution of poor reporting and inadequate methods over time in 20 920 randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane reviews: research on research study

“…[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] But most have focused on small numbers of trials or specific diseases, journals, or time periods. These studies used various criteria for their assessments, which were frequently not defined.…”

Evaluation of ‘Stop Smoking in its Tracks’: an intensive smoking cessation program for pregnant Aboriginal women incorporating contingency-based financial rewards

“…9 The SST program is described briefly here and incorporates best evidence. It was designed to be delivered by the Aboriginal Maternal Infant Health Services (AMIHS) midwife and AHWs, and included the following steps:…”