Download PDF
Gesundheitswesen 2016; 78(03): 175-188
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-111066
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung – ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation

Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide
T. C. Hoffmann , associate professor of clinical epidemiology
1   Centre for Research in Evidence Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia, 4229
,
P. P. Glasziou , director and professor of evidence based medicine
1   Centre for Research in Evidence Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland, Australia, 4229
,
I. Boutron , professor of epidemiology
2   INSERMU738, Université Paris Descartes-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
,
R. Milne , professorial fellow in public health and director
3   Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
,
R. Perera , university lecturer in medical statistics
4   Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
,
D. Moher , senior scientist
5   Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
,
D. G. Altman , Douglas G Altman professor of statistics in medicine
6   Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, UK
,
V. Barbour , medicine editorial director, PLOS
7   PLOS, Brisbane, Australia
,
H. Macdonald , assistant editor
8   BMJ, London, UK
,
M. Johnston , emeritus professor of health psychology
9   Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
,
S. E. Lamb , Kadoorie professor of trauma rehabilitation and co-director of Oxford clinical trials research unit
10   Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
,
M. Dixon-Woods , professor of medical sociology
11   Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
,
P. McCulloch , clinical reader in surgery
12   Nuffield Department of Surgical Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
,
J. C. Wyatt , leadership chair of ehealth research
13   Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
,
A.-W. Chan , Phelan scientist
14   Women’s College Research Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
,
S. Michie , professor
15   Centre for Outcomes Research and Effectiveness, Department of Clinical, Educational and Health Psychology, University College London, London, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 January 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung – ein Instrument für eine verbesserte Interventionsbeschreibung und ReplikationGesundheitswesen 2016; 78(03): e174-e174
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1600948

Zusammenfassung

Nur wenn Interventionsbeschreibungen vollständig veröffentlicht sind, können Kliniker und Patienten Interventionen, die sich als nützlich erwiesen haben, verlässlich umsetzen und andere Forscher die Studienergebnisse replizieren oder darauf aufbauen. Die Qualität von Interventionsbeschreibungen in wissenschaftlichen Publikationen ist bemerkenswert gering. Um die Vollständigkeit der Berichterstattung und damit die Replizierbarkeit von Interventionen zu verbessern, entwickelte eine internationale Gruppe von Experten und Interessensvertretern die Checkliste zur Interventionsbeschreibung und Replikation (TIDieR). Der Prozess beinhaltete eine Literaturrecherche zu relevanten Checklisten und wissenschaftlichen Untersuchungen, eine Delphi-Umfrage mit internationalen Experten zur Steuerung der Item-Auswahl und eine Expertenkonferenz. Die daraus resultierende 12-Item-TIDieR Checkliste (Bezeichnung, Warum, Was (Materialien), Was (Verfahren), Wer intervenierte, Wie, Wo, Wann und Wieviel, Anpassungen, Modifikationen, Wie gut (geplante Durchführungskontrolle), Wie gut (tatsächliche Durchführung)) ist eine Erweiterung des CONSORT 2010 Statements (Item 5) und des SPIRIT 2013 Statements (Item 11). Während der Fokus der Checkliste auf klinischen Studien liegt, kann die erweiterte Anleitung bei allen evaluativen Studiendesigns herangezogen werden. Dieser Artikel präsentiert die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung mit Erklärung und Erläuterung jedes einzelnen Items sowie Beispielen guter Berichterstattung. Die TIDieR Checkliste und Anleitung sollen das Berichten von Interventionen verbessern und Autoren eine Hilfe bieten, die Berichterstattung ihrer Interventionen zu strukturieren, Gutachtern und Herausgebern, die Beschreibungen zu beurteilen und Lesern, die Informationen zu nutzen.

Abstract

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting. The resultant 12-item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who intervened, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actually carried out)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with a detailed explanation of each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure the accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Schlüsselwörter

Leitlinien zur Forschungsberichterstattung - Interventionsbeschreibung - Replizierbarkeit

Key words

reporting guidelines - intervention description - replicability
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Duff J, Leather H, Walden E. et al. Adequacy of published oncology randomised controlled trials to provide therapeutic details needed for clinical application. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010; 102: 702-705
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C. et al. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ 2008; 336: 1472-1474
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hoffmann T, Erueti C, Glasziou P. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 2013; 347: f3755
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schulz K, Altman D, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 2010; 340: c332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schroter S, Glasziou P, Heneghan C. Quality of descriptions of treatments: a review of published randomised controlled trials. BMJ Open 2012; 2: e001978
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Boutron I, Moher D, Altman D. et al. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomised trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 295-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 MacPherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R. et al. Revised standards for reporting interventions in clinical trials of acupuncture (STRICTA): extending the CONSORT statement. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gagnier J, Boon H, Rochon P. et al. Reporting randomised, controlled trials of herbal interventions: an elaborated CONSORT statement. Ann Intern Med 2006; 144: 364-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Chan A, Tetzlaff J, Gøtzsche P. et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013; 346: e7586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Moher D, Schulz K, Simera I. et al. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010; 7: e1000217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Murphy M, Black N, Lamping D. et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess 1998; 2: 1-88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Von Elm E, Altman D, Egger M. et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ 2007; 335: 806-808
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 De Bruin M, Viechtbauer W, Hospers H. et al. Standard care quality determines treatment outcomes in control groups of HAART-adherence intervention studies: implications for the interpretation and comparison of intervention effects. Health Psychol 2009; 28: 668-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Thorpe K, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD. et al. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 464-475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S. et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 McCleary N, Duncan E, Stewart F. et al. Active ingredients are reported more often for pharmacologic than non-pharmacologic interventions: an illustrative review of reporting practices in titles and abstracts. Trials 2013; 14: 146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Michie S, West R. Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to Government. Health Psychol Rev 2013; 7: 1-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dixon-Woods M, Leslie M, Tarrant C. et al. Explaining Matching Michigan: an ethnographic study of a patient safety program. Implement Sci 2013; 8: 70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Dixon-Woods M, Bosk C, Aveling E. et al. Explaining Michigan: developing an ex post theory of a quality improvement program. Milbank Q 2011; 89: 167-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S. et al. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2007; 2: 40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B. et al. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behaviour change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behaviour Change Consortium. Health Psychol 2004; 23: 443-451
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hardeman W, Michie S, Fanshawe T. et al. Fidelity of delivery of a physical activity intervention: predictors and consequences. Psychol Health 2008; 23: 11-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Spillane V, Byrne M, Byrne M. et al. Monitoring treatment fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. J Adv Nursing 2007; 60: 343-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Baron G. et al. Effect of editors’ implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 2012; 344: e4178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hoffmann T, English T, Glasziou P. Reporting of interventions in randomised trials: an audit of journal Instructions to Authors. Trials 2014; 15: 20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM. et al. Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nature. For authors: manuscript formatting guide.[Internet] www.nature.com/nature/uthors/gta/index.html#a5.3.
    PubMed
  • 28 Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG. et al. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86-89
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Glasziou P, Altman D, Bossuyt P. et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet 2014; 383: 267-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar