Reporting Rigor of Cancer Rehabilitation Interventions: Application of the CReDECI-2 Guidelines.
Rachelle Brick, Lauren Voss, Sasha Arbid and 13 others
PMID 37594223WHAT IT FOUND
Cancer rehabilitation trials rarely report enough detail to be replicated.
Only 18% described the theory behind the intervention, and just 12% reported whether the treatment was delivered as planned. Most trials omitted costs, resources, and process evaluations, leaving clinicians unable to judge feasibility.
Key findings
01On average, included trials reported only 3.48 of the 13 required CReDECI-2 checklist items.
02Only 18% of studies reported the intervention's underlying theoretical basis, and only 12% reported fidelity to the treatment protocol.
03Items related to piloting, feasibility, and program evaluation were reported in less than 30% of articles.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was drawn from two specific systematic reviews, so findings may not apply to cancer rehabilitation trials published after 2019. Trials focused exclusively on symptom management, distress, or psychological outcomes were excluded, so the reporting quality in those common areas is unknown. The analysis did not distinguish between telehealth and in-person interventions, despite telehealth being a growing part of rehabilitation practice. The study did not evaluate trial registration or open science practices, which are separate indicators of research transparency.
Declared interests
One author prepared the article as part of official duties for Veterans Affairs. The findings do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institutes of Health or Veterans Affairs. No other financial benefits were reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the low reporting scores as evidence that the interventions themselves were ineffective or poorly designed. This study assessed only how completely the authors described their methods, not the clinical outcomes of the trials.