What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions

Conclusions Most focus on intervention reporting has been directed at trials. Poor intervention reporting in stroke systematic reviews is prevalent, compounded by poor trial reporting. Without adequate intervention descriptions, the conduct, usability and interpretation of reviews are restricted and therefore, require action by trialists, systematic reviewers, peer reviewers and editors.
Source: BMJ Open - Category: Journals (General) Authors: Tags: Open access, Evidence based practice, Medical publishing and peer review, Neurology, Rehabilitation medicine Research Source Type: research