On the Reporting of Experimental and Control Therapies in Stroke Rehabilitation Trials: A Systematic Review

To use the Centralized Open-Access Rehabilitation database for Stroke to explore reporting of both experimental and control interventions in randomized controlled trials for stroke rehabilitation (including upper and lower extremity therapies).

The Centralized Open-Access Rehabilitation database for Stroke was created from a search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health from the earliest available date to May 31, 2014.

A total of 2892 titles were reduced to 514 that were screened by full text. This screening left 215 randomized controlled trials in the database (489 independent groups representing 12,847 patients).

Using a mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods, we performed a text-based analysis of how the procedures of experimental and control therapies were described. Experimental and control groups were rated by 2 independent coders according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication criteria.

Linear mixed-effects regression with a random effect of study (groups nested within studies) showed that experimental groups had statistically more words in their procedures (mean, 271.8 words) than did control groups (mean, 154.8 words) (P<.001). Experimental groups had statistically more references in their procedures (mean, 1.60 references) than did control groups (mean, .82 references) (P<.001). Experimental groups also scored significantly higher on the total Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist (mean score, 7.43 points) than did control groups (mean score, 5.23 points) (P<.001).

Control treatments in stroke motor rehabilitation trials are underdescribed relative to experimental treatments. These poor descriptions are especially problematic for "conventional" therapy control groups. Poor reporting is a threat to the internal validity and generalizability of clinical trial results. We recommend authors use preregistered protocols and established reporting criteria to improve transparency.