Investigating the Adequacy of Intervention Descriptions in Recent Speech-Language Pathology Literature: Is Evidence From Randomized Trials Useable? 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 ... Research Article
Research Article  |   May 17, 2017
Investigating the Adequacy of Intervention Descriptions in Recent Speech-Language Pathology Literature: Is Evidence From Randomized Trials Useable?
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Arabella Ludemann
    Speech Pathology, University of Sydney, New South Wales
  • Emma Power
    Speech Pathology, University of Sydney, New South Wales
  • Tammy C. Hoffmann
    Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Bond University, Queensland, Australia
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Correspondence to Arabella Ludemann: alud3702@uni.sydney.edu.au
  • Editor: Krista Wilkinson
    Editor: Krista Wilkinson×
  • Associate Editor: Laura DeThorne
    Associate Editor: Laura DeThorne×
Article Information
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Research Articles
Research Article   |   May 17, 2017
Investigating the Adequacy of Intervention Descriptions in Recent Speech-Language Pathology Literature: Is Evidence From Randomized Trials Useable?
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2017, Vol. 26, 443-455. doi:10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0035
History: Received March 9, 2016 , Revised September 20, 2016 , Accepted December 1, 2016
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2017, Vol. 26, 443-455. doi:10.1044/2016_AJSLP-16-0035
History: Received March 9, 2016; Revised September 20, 2016; Accepted December 1, 2016

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.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access