Occupational therapists reading reports of randomised controlled trials and trying to interpret the reliability and size of effects stated are frequently frustrated by poor standards of reporting. They need to be able to evaluate the profession's interventions critically: to stop the ineffective, to reduce the hazardous and to promote the effective.
Without good quality trials and trial reports, the profession will continue to be dogged by systematic reviews that conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of occupational therapy. These, in turn, will mean that the use of occupational therapy cannot be promoted strongly in national guidelines and, therefore, services may become restricted.
This review covers some of the issues to be considered when writing or reading a report of a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention, such as occupational therapy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Annals of Internal Medicine (2005) Information for authors. Available at: http://www.annals.org Accessed on 11.04.05.
2.
BlaxterM (2000) Criteria for qualitative research. Medical Sociology News, 26(2), 34–37.
3.
Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (2005) Available at: http://www.corec.org.uk Accessed on 09.02.05.
Current Controlled Trials (2005) International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register. Available at: http://www.controlled-trials.com Accessed on 09.02.05.
6.
DeaneKHO (2006) Randomised controlled trials: Part 1, design. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(5), 217–23.
7.
DeaneKHOEllis-HillCJonesDWhurrRBen-ShlomoYPlayfordEDClarkeCE (2002) Systematic review of paramedical therapies for Parkinson's disease. Movement Disorders, 17(5), 984–91.
8.
DeaneKHOEllis-HillCDekkerKDaviesPClarkeCE (2003) A survey of current occupational therapy practice for Parkinson's disease in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 66(5), 193–200.
9.
DevaneDBegleyCMClarkeM (2004) How many do I need? Basic principles of sample size estimation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(3), 297–302.
10.
DevereauxPJMannsBJGhaliWAQuanHLacchettiCMontoriVMBhandariMGuyattGH (2001) Physician interpretations and textbook definitions of blinding terminology in randomised controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 285(15), 2000–2003.
11.
Ioannidis JPA, Evans SJW, Gotzsche PC, O'Neill RT, Altman DG, Schulz K, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group (2004) Better reporting of harms in randomised trials: An extension of the CONSORT Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141(10), 781–88.
12.
JainSKingsJPlayfordED (2005) Occupational therapy for people with progressive neurological disorders: Unpacking the black box. British Journal of Occupational Therapy, 68(3), 125–30.
13.
LewisJAMacHinD (1993) Intention to treat — who should use ITT?British Journal of Cancer, 68(4), 647–50.
14.
MaherCGSherringtonCHerbertRDMoseleyAMElkinsM (2003) Reliability of the PEDro Scale for rating quality of randomised controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83(8), 713–21.
15.
Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust (2003) The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Available at: http://www.phru.nhs.uk/casp/casp.htm Accessed on 23.02.05.
16.
MoherDPhamBJonesACookDJJadadARMoherMTugwellPKlassenT (1998) Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Lancet, 352(9128), 609–13.
17.
MoherDSchulzKFAltmanDG (2001) The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet, 357(9263), 1191–94.
18.
NCCHTA Communications Team (2005) The NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme. Available at: http://www.ncchta.org Accessed on 10.05.05.
19.
NewellCD (1992) Intention-to-treat analysis: Implications for quantitative and qualitative research. International Journal of Epidemiology, 21(5), 837–41.
20.
SchulzKFChalmersIHayesRJAltmanDG (1995) Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(5), 408–12.
21.
SchulzKFGrimesDAAltmanDGHayesRJ (1996) Blinding and exclusions after allocation in randomised controlled trials: Survey of published parallel group trials in obstetrics and gynaecology. British Medical Journal, 312(7033), 742–44.
22.
SheinerLBRubinDB (1995) Intention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 57(1), 6–15.
23.
ThorntonALeeP (2000) Publication bias in meta-analysis: Its causes and consequences. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(2), 207–16.
24.
van TulderMWAssendelftWJJKoesBWBouterLM, Editorial Board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group (1997) Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group for Spinal Disorders. Spine, 22(20), 2323–30.
