Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2013 May 29;8(5):e65442. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0065442. Print 2013.
Previous reviews show that reporting guidelines have improved the quality of trial reports in medicine, yet existing guidelines may not be fully suited for social and psychological intervention trials.
OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: We conducted a two-part study that reviewed (1) reporting guidelines for and (2) the reporting quality of social and psychological intervention trials.
(1) To identify reporting guidelines, we systematically searched multiple electronic databases and reporting guideline registries. (2) To identify trials, we hand-searched 40 journals with the 10 highest impact factors in clinical psychology, criminology, education, and social work. ELIGIBILITY: (1) Reporting guidelines consisted of articles introducing a checklist of reporting standards relevant to social and psychological intervention trials. (2) Trials reported randomised experiments of complex interventions with psychological, social, or health outcomes.
(1) We identified 19 reporting guidelines that yielded 147 reporting standards relevant to social and psychological interventions. Social and behavioural science guidelines included 89 standards not found in CONSORT guidelines. However, CONSORT guidelines used more recommended techniques for development and dissemination compared to other guidelines. (2) Our review of trials (n = 239) revealed that many standards were poorly reported, such as identification as a randomised trial in titles (20% reported the information) and abstracts (55%); information about blinding (15%), sequence generation (23%), and allocation concealment (17%); and details about actual delivery of experimental (43%) and control interventions (34%), participant uptake (25%), and service environment (28%). Only 11 of 40 journals referenced reporting guidelines in "Instructions to Authors."
Existing reporting guidelines have important limitations in content, development, and/or dissemination. Important details are routinely missing from trial publications; most leading journals in social and behavioural sciences do not ask authors to follow reporting standards. Findings demonstrate a need to develop a CONSORT extension with updated standards for social and psychological intervention trials.
先前的综述表明，报告规范提高了医学临床试验报告的质量，但现有的规范可能并不完全适用于社会和心理干预试验。
目的/设计：我们进行了一项两部分的研究，回顾了（1）社会和心理干预试验的报告规范，以及（2）报告质量。
（1）为了确定报告规范，我们系统地搜索了多个电子数据库和报告规范注册处。（2）为了确定试验，我们手检了临床心理学、犯罪学、教育学和社会工作领域 40 种影响因子最高的期刊。
（1）报告规范包括介绍与社会和心理干预试验相关的报告标准清单的文章。（2）试验报告了具有心理、社会或健康结果的复杂干预的随机实验。
（1）我们确定了 19 个报告规范，其中包含了 147 个与社会和心理干预相关的报告标准。社会和行为科学规范包含了 CONSORT 规范中没有的 89 个标准。然而，与其他规范相比，CONSORT 规范在开发和传播方面使用了更多推荐的技术。（2）我们对试验的回顾（n=239）表明，许多标准报告得很差，例如在标题（20%报告了信息）和摘要（55%）中识别为随机试验；关于盲法（15%）、序列生成（23%）和分配隐藏（17%）的信息；以及关于实际实施实验（43%）和对照干预（34%）、参与者参与（25%）和服务环境（28%）的详细信息。在 40 种期刊中，只有 11 种在“作者须知”中提到了报告规范。
现有的报告规范在内容、开发和/或传播方面存在重要的局限性。试验出版物中经常缺少重要的细节；社会和行为科学领域的大多数主要期刊都没有要求作者遵循报告标准。研究结果表明，需要为社会和心理干预试验制定一个包含更新标准的 CONSORT 扩展。
