Investigating the Adequacy of Intervention Descriptions in Recent Speech-Language Pathology Literature: Is Evidence From Randomized Trials Useable?

Abstract

Purpose To evaluate the completeness of intervention descriptions in recent randomized controlled trials of speech-language pathology treatments. Method A consecutive sample of entries on the speechBITE database yielded 129 articles and 162 interventions. Interventions were rated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Rating occurred at 3 stages: interventions as published in the primary article, secondary locations referred to by the article (e.g., protocol papers, websites), and contact with corresponding authors. Results No interventions were completely described in primary publications or after analyzing information from secondary locations. After information was added from correspondence with authors, a total of 28% of interventions was rated as complete. The intervention elements with the most information missing in the primary publications were tailoring and modification of interventions (in 25% and 13% of articles, respectively) and intervention materials and where they could be accessed (18%). Elements that were adequately described in most articles were intervention names (in 100% of articles); rationale (96%); and details of the frequency, session duration, and length of interventions (69%). Conclusions Clinicians and researchers are restricted in the usability of evidence from speech-language pathology randomized trials because of poor reporting of elements essential to the replication of interventions.