Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
Trials. 2011 Jul 19;12:179. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-179.
Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation.
We identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials.
Reports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials.
目前仍需建立报告析因随机试验的标准。本研究旨在评价社区环境下复杂干预措施析因试验的方法学报告质量。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsychInfo 和 Cochrane 对照试验注册库,以确定 2000 年 1 月至 2009 年 8 月期间发表的社区环境下复杂干预措施的析因随机试验。我们还对 2003 年发表的两篇综述论文进行了引文搜索。两名评审员根据 22 项与研究设计、分析和表述相关的条目提取数据。
我们得到了 5941 个唯一的标题,其中 116 篇全文获得并纳入了本次评价,最终纳入 76 篇。纳入的试验涵盖了广泛的目标条件和干预类型。中位样本量为 400(四分位间距 191-1001)。大多数(88%)试验采用 2×2 析因设计。仅有 21%的试验明确阐述了采用析因设计的原理。特定于析因试验的设计、分析或表述方面的报告各不相同,但没有证据表明 2003 年前或后发表的试验在这些方面的报告有差异。然而,对于普遍适用于所有试验报告的 CONSORT 条目,有一些证据表明,后续的研究更有可能报告采用意向治疗(ITT)方法(78%比 52%)、呈现恰当的组间效应估计值(88%比 63%),以及呈现这些估计值的标准误差或 95%置信区间(78%比 56%)。仅有 14 项(18%)试验报告了干预措施之间的相互作用和与这些效应的精度相关的某种度量。
社区环境下复杂干预措施析因试验的报告在提供设计和分析的重要方法学方面的信息量存在差异。这种差异支持将 CONSORT 指南扩展到包括析因试验的具体报告。