STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Forty-seven rehabilitation clinicians of 5 professions from 7 teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, USA). reviewed 76 RCTs published by main rehabilitation journals exploring 14 domains chosen through consensus and piloting.
RESULTS: The response rate was 99%. Inter-rater agreement was moderate/good. All clinicians considered unanimously 12 (16%) RCTs clinically replicable and none not replicable. At least one "absent" information was found by all participants in 60 RCTs (79%), and by a minimum of 85% in the remaining 16 (21%). Information considered to be less well described (8-19% "perfect" information) included two providers (skills, experience) and two delivery (cautions, relationships) items. The best described (50-79% "perfect") were the classic methodological items included in CONSORT (descending order: participants, materials, procedures, setting and intervention).
CONCLUSION: Clinical replicability must be considered in RCTs reporting, particularly for complex interventions. Classical methodological checklists like CONSORT are not enough, and also TIDieR do not cover all the requirement . This study supports the need for field-specific checklists.