Incomplete descriptions of oral nutritional supplement interventions in reports of randomised controlled trials
(English)In: Clinical Nutrition, ISSN 0261-5614, E-ISSN 1532-1983Article in journal (Refereed) Epub ahead of print
Background & aims
The effects of oral nutritional supplements (ONS) have been evaluated in several clinical trials and more studies have been requested. To facilitate replication, support accurate evaluations of research results and avoid research waste, high quality reporting of interventions in clinical trials is needed. The aim of this study is to assess the quality of reporting of interventions in publications describing randomised controlled trials of ONS in populations with malnutrition or at nutritional risk.
The PubMed database was searched for articles describing ONS trials published between January 2002 and December 2015. The quality of intervention descriptions was evaluated using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide, which contains twelve items. Articles published before and after 2011 were compared.
Of 76 articles identified, only 3% reported all TIDieR items in sufficient detail. The most frequently missing elements were descriptions of the intervention procedures (e.g. how the ONS were to be taken and if participants were given a choice of flavours), which were adequately presented in only 26% of the articles. Less than half of the articles included a description of the intervention provider and sufficient information about the location(s) for the intervention. Information about adherence and mode of delivery was reported in 60–65% of the articles. Most frequently reported, in >70% of the articles, were items regarding the brief name of the intervention, the rationale for the intervention and the materials used (i.e. information about the specific ONS product(s) administered). The reporting quality for two of the items (materials and provider) was higher in articles published after 2011.
The quality of reporting of ONS interventions was found to be poor. The descriptions mostly lacked information about intervention procedures, provider and location(s). A moderately higher reporting quality was observed in articles published after 2011. These findings imply that an improvement in the descriptions of ONS interventions is required in future clinical trials of malnutrition treatment.
Oral Nutritional Supplements, Reporting quality, Malnutrition
Nutrition and Dietetics
Research subject Food, Nutrition and Dietetics
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-319841DOI: 10.1016/j.clnu.2017.03.024OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-319841DiVA: diva2:1087831