Completeness of the description of manipulation and mobilisation techniques in randomized controlled trials in neck pain; A review using the TiDieR checklist

Waste not, want not: call to action for spinal manipulative therapy researchers

BACKGROUND

Research waste is defined as research outcomes with no or minimal societal benefits. It is a widespread problem in the healthcare field. Four primary sources of research waste have been defined: (1) irrelevant or low priority research questions, (2) poor design or methodology, (3) lack of publication, and (4) biased or inadequate reporting. This commentary, which was developed by a multidisciplinary group of researchers with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) research expertise, discusses waste in SMT research and provides suggestions to improve future research.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary examines common sources of waste in SMT research, focusing on design and methodological issues, by drawing on prior research and examples from clinical and mechanistic SMT studies. Clinical research is dominated by small studies and studies with a high risk of bias. This problem is compounded by systematic reviews that pool heterogenous data from varying populations, settings, and application of SMT. Research focusing on the mechanisms of SMT often fails to address the clinical relevance of mechanisms, relies on very short follow-up periods, and has inadequate control for contextual factors.

CONCLUSIONS

This call to action is directed to researchers in the field of SMT. It is critical that the SMT research community act to improve the way research is designed, conducted, and disseminated. We present specific key action points and resources, which should enhance the quality and usefulness of future SMT research.

Description of massage interventions in randomised clinical trials for neck pain; a review using the TIDieR checklist

OBJECTIVE

How interventions are reported can impact the ability to implement these intervention in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to assess the reporting of massage interventions in randomised controlled trials for patients with neck pain.

DATA SOURCES

This manuscript concerns a secondary analysis of trials evaluating massage for neck pain selected for a scoping review. An updated literature search was completed using four databases to 31 July 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

Trials were selected that evaluate massage interventions. Two independent assessors extracted descriptive information, methodological quality (PEDro-scale) and assessed completeness of reporting of the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier-checklist). We present frequencies of the extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials (2840 patients) with neck pain. Most trials (n = 23) included patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. We found a wide variety of massage interventions from Chinese massage, Swedish massage to myofascial release. In addition, the dose, number of sessions and the duration of the intervention varied widely. The methodological quality overall was fair to good (varied between 4-8/10), and we found a moderate completeness of reporting. All trials provided the name of the intervention, 30 (86%) provided a rationale and 26 (74%) trials described details of the massage intervention.

CONCLUSION

The massage interventions were moderately described in trials in patients with neck pain, but provided enough information to guide the decision making for designing future Network Meta-analysis as to what trials need to be considered when grouping massage interventions in a clinically relevant way.

Completeness of intervention description in invasive cardiology trials: an observational study of ClinicalTrials.gov registry and corresponding publications

Introduction

Non-pharmacological invasive interventions in cardiology are complex and often inadequately reported. Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide were developed to aid reporting and assessment of non-pharmacological interventions. The aim of our study was to assess the completeness of describing invasive cardiology interventions in clinical trials at the level of trial registration and corresponding journal article publication.

Methodology

We searched for clinical trials in invasive cardiology registered in Clinicaltrials.gov and corresponding journal publications. We used the 10-item TIDieR checklist for registries and 12-item checklist for journal publications.

Results

Out of 7,017 registry items retrieved by our search, 301 items were included in the analysis. The search for corresponding published articles yielded 192 journal publications. The majority of trials were funded by the industry and were medical device trials. The median number of reported TIDieR items was 4.5 (95% CI 4.49-4.51) out of 10, and while the corresponding journal articles reported 6.5 (95% CI 6.0-6.5) out of 12 TIDieR items.

Conclusion

Registration and reporting of invasive cardiology trials is often incomplete and adequate detailed description of the interventions is not provided. TIDieR checklist is an important tool which should be used to ensure rigorous reporting of non-pharmacological interventions in cardiology.

Benefits and Harms of Spinal Manipulative Therapy for Treating Recent and Persistent Nonspecific Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to estimate the benefits and harms of cervical spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) for treating neck pain. DESIGN: Intervention systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). LITERATURE SEARCH: We searched the MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, Chiropractic Literature Index bibliographic databases, and grey literature sources, up to June 6, 2022. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating SMT compared to guideline-recommended and nonrecommended interventions, sham SMT, and no intervention for adults with neck pain were eligible for our systematic review. Prespecified outcomes included pain, range of motion, disability, health-related quality of life. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis for clinically homogenous RCTs at short-term and long-term outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 Tool. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 28 RCTs. There was very low to low certainty evidence that SMT was more effective than recommended interventions for improving pain at short term (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35, 0.97) and long term (SMD, 0.73; 95% CI: 0.31, 1.16), and for reducing disability at short-term (SMD, 0.95; 95% CI: 0.48, 1.42) and long term (SMD, 0.65; 95% CI: 0.23, 1.06). Transient side effects only were found (eg, muscle soreness). CONCLUSION: There was very low certainty evidence supporting cervical SMT as an intervention to reduce pain and improve disability in people with neck pain. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(9):510-528. Epub: 10 August 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11708.

Incomplete reporting of manual therapy interventions and a lack of clinician and setting diversity in clinical trials for neck pain limits replication and real-world translation. A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain is a leading cause of disability, and manual therapy (MT) is a common intervention used across disciplines and settings to treat it. While there is consistent support for MT in managing neck pain, questions remain about the feasibility of incorporating MT from research into clinical practice. The purpose of this scoping review was to assess the adequacy of MT intervention descriptions and the variability in clinician and setting for MT delivery in trials for neck pain.

METHODS

Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, PEDRo, and the Cochrane Central Registry for Controlled Trials were searched for clinical trials published from January 2010 to November 2021. A 11-item tool modified from the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template was used to assess appropriateness of intervention reporting. Clinicians, subclassifications of neck pain, and clinical settings were also extracted.

RESULTS

113 trials were included. A low percentage of studies provided the recommended level of detail in the description of how MT was delivered (4.4%), while 39.0% included no description at all. Just over half of trials included clinician's qualifications (58.4%), dose of MT (59.3%), and occurrence of adverse events (55.8%). The proportion of trials with clinicians delivering MT were physical therapists (77.9%), chiropractors (10.6%), and osteopaths (2.7%).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

These results reveal incomplete reporting of essential treatment parameters, and a lack of clinician diversity. To foster reproducibility, researchers should report detailed descriptions of MT interventions. Future research should incorporate a variety of MT practitioners to improve generalizability.

Exercise therapy reporting in clinical trials for chronic neck pain: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reproducibility of exercise therapy used in clinical trials for chronic neck pain (CNP) based on reported items from the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklists.

METHODS

Two researchers systematically searched, screened, and selected trials that assessed exercise therapy for CNP between 2000 and 2021 from PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid Medline. Included studies were published in English, and study participants experienced neck pain for longer than 3 months. Thoroughness of reporting of exercise therapy was assessed using the TIDierR and CERT checklists. Methodological quality of each study was screened with the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data analysis was performed for descriptive and correlational statistics.

RESULTS

Sixty-three clinical trials using exercise therapy for treatment of CNP met the inclusion criteria. No study reported all TIDieR or CERT items. The mean number of items reported was 5.44 (SD 2.40, range of 1-11) on the TIDieR, and 8.27 (SD 4.14, range of 0-17) for the CERT. Risk of bias was high for 30 studies (47.6%), somewhat concerning for 20 studies (31.7%), and low for 13 studies (21.7%). Higher risk of bias was associated with a lower number of TIDieR and CERT items reported.

DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION

The majority of exercise therapy trials for CNP lack proper reporting, limiting reproducibility of the interventions in real world clinical practice and follow-on research. After checklists were published, reporting did not improve.

Well-described exercises for chronic low back pain in Life Science Literature: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic exercise (TE) is recommended in multimodal treatment for patients with non-specific chronic back pain (cLBP).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to identify an exercise or a spectrum of exercises, well described and reproducible by the clinician, for cLBP patients.

METHODS

Systematic review by researching in the databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, PEDro, CINAHL, and Scopus. Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) supported the TE in patients with non-specific cLBP, provided that it was well described and could be repeated by another therapist. Methodological evaluation was performed using the PEDro scale and only studies with a score of ⩾ 6 were included. The assessment of the intervention description was carried out with the TIDieR checklist. The risk of bias was examined.

RESULTS

Twenty-one articles were included in this systematic review. The defective description and the poorly reporting of the intervention makes it more difficult for the clinician to include the TE into clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study showed that the reporting of the intervention in high quality RCT on chronic low back pain is low, threatening the external validity of the results.

Overview of Reviews Using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) as a Measure of Trial Intervention Reporting Quality

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the quality of descriptions of interventions in health care research reports, based on a synthesis of reviews that used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) to rate the completeness and quality of intervention reporting.

DESIGN

Overview of published reviews. In a systematic search of the literature, 56 review articles were retrieved that had evaluated 3454 primary studies (index articles) using all or most of the 12 TIDieR items, applied to experimental treatment only or treatment and comparator both, separately. If available, percentages "reported completely" were extracted based on the index article, the index article supplemented by related information, and these 2 supplemented by e-mailing the author. Information on the review's methodology was also extracted.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PARTICIPANTS

Not applicable.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage of primary studies receiving "adequately reported" ratings on each of the 12 TIDieR items.

RESULTS

While for treatment arms TIDieR items 1 (name of treatment) and 2 (why of treatment) are generally judged to be reported adequately, the percentage is between 25% and 75% for most other items and is as low as 10% for item 10 (modifications). Comparators are reported even more poorly. Use of additional publications on a trial increased percentages "reported adequately" marginally; e-mailing resulted in significant increases in completeness of reporting. Rehabilitation trials were reported better than nonrehabilitation trials for some TIDieR items and worse for others.

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting on the interventions and comparators of trials is substandard. More extensive use of supplemental digital content and of versions of TIDieR customized for specific domains of research may improve the situation.

Argentine tango in the care of Parkinson's disease: A systematic review and analysis of the intervention

OBJECTIVE

To analyse the content of the interventions reported in studies investigating the applicability and efficacy of Argentine tango in participants with Idiopathic Parkinson Disease.

METHODS

Independent reviewers searched databases (PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PEDro) from their inception to November 2019. Eligible studies were randomised, controlled and uncontrolled clinical trials, and case reports.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The Template for Intervention Description and Replication guidelines and checklist were used to assess quality and quantity of the content of Argentine tango interventions' description.

RESULTS

We found 21 papers investigating the applicability and efficacy of Argentine tango in participants with Idiopathic Parkinson Disease. Completeness of the reporting of intervention was satisfying. The intervention is intended to affect a variety of aspects of functioning relevant to individuals with Idiopathic Parkinson Disease. Detailed information on the intervention's procedure and dosing is usually provided. The delivery of the Tango dance program was predominantly extensive; however, the intervention has been provided with various approaches and showed to be very adaptable. Attrition- and adherence- rates described are acceptable. The Adapted Tango dance program is the earliest and most researched modality of tango intervention in participants with Idiopathic Parkinson Disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Argentine tango is appropriately described in the studies investigating the applicability and efficacy of the intervention in participants with Idiopathic Parkinson Disease. However, the reporting could be ameliorated.