Abstract
Background/purpose. Underreporting of comparators in published literature can affect our ability to interpret, compare and generalise trial results. Comparator reporting has not been previously examined for behaviour change trials. We assessed completeness and variability in comparator reporting in 142 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of behavioural smoking cessation interventions.
Methods. Two coders reliably identified the characteristics of comparators, including their potential active components (i.e., intervention activities targeting behaviours key to smoking cessation and qualifying as behaviour change techniques) in published and in unpublished materials obtained from study authors directly.
Results. Unpublished materials were obtained for 93/142 (65%) comparator groups. Comparator mode of delivery, treatment time, and providers’ profession were commonly reported in published materials (89.8%, 83.1%, and 81.4% respectively), while providers’ generic and specific training were less consistently reported (59.8% and 41.2% respectively). With regards to comparator content, only 26% (491/1891) of the potential active components could be identified in published materials. Reporting quality (#published/#total active content) varied considerably between trials. Experimental (vs. comparator) interventions were better reported (B(SE)=0.34(0.11),p<.001). Unpublished materials were more often obtained from trial authors for recent studies (B(SE)=0.093 (0.03), p=.003)
published in behavioural (vs. medical) journals (B(SE)=1.03 (0.41), p=.012).
Conclusions and implications and implications. The extent and variability in underreporting of comparators may compromise reader’s ability to interpret the effects of individual trials, compare and explain intervention effects in evidence syntheses, and estimate the additional benefit of an experimental intervention in other settings.
Methods. Two coders reliably identified the characteristics of comparators, including their potential active components (i.e., intervention activities targeting behaviours key to smoking cessation and qualifying as behaviour change techniques) in published and in unpublished materials obtained from study authors directly.
Results. Unpublished materials were obtained for 93/142 (65%) comparator groups. Comparator mode of delivery, treatment time, and providers’ profession were commonly reported in published materials (89.8%, 83.1%, and 81.4% respectively), while providers’ generic and specific training were less consistently reported (59.8% and 41.2% respectively). With regards to comparator content, only 26% (491/1891) of the potential active components could be identified in published materials. Reporting quality (#published/#total active content) varied considerably between trials. Experimental (vs. comparator) interventions were better reported (B(SE)=0.34(0.11),p<.001). Unpublished materials were more often obtained from trial authors for recent studies (B(SE)=0.093 (0.03), p=.003)
published in behavioural (vs. medical) journals (B(SE)=1.03 (0.41), p=.012).
Conclusions and implications and implications. The extent and variability in underreporting of comparators may compromise reader’s ability to interpret the effects of individual trials, compare and explain intervention effects in evidence syntheses, and estimate the additional benefit of an experimental intervention in other settings.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | S44-S45 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | International Journal of Behavioral Medicine |
| Volume | 28 |
| Issue number | SUPPL 1 |
| Early online date | 5 Jun 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jun 2021 |