title: Reporting of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings: a systematic review.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Standards for the reporting of factorial randomised trials remain to be established. We aimed to review the quality of reporting of methodological aspects of published factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify factorial randomised trials of complex interventions in community settings from January 2000 to August 2009. We also conducted a citation search of two review papers published in 2003. Data were extracted by two reviewers on 22 items relating to study design, analysis and presentation.
  
  
  RESULTS
  We identified 5941 unique titles, from which 116 full papers were obtained and 76 were included in the review. The included trials reflected a broad range of target conditions and types of intervention. The median sample size was 400 (interquartile range 191-1001). Most (88%) trials employed a 2 × 2 factorial design. Few trials (21%) explicitly stated the rationale for using a factorial design. Reporting of aspects of design, analysis or presentation specific to factorial trials was variable, but there was no evidence that reporting of these aspects was different for trials published before or after 2003. However, for CONSORT items that apply generally to the reporting of all trials, there was some evidence that later studies were more likely to report employing an intention-to-treat (ITT) approach (78% vs 52%), present appropriate between-group estimates of effect (88% vs 63%), and present standard errors or 95% confidence intervals for such estimates (78% vs 56%). Interactions between interventions and some measure of the precision associated with such effects were reported in only 14 (18%) trials.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Reports of factorial trials of complex interventions in community settings vary in the amount of information they provide regarding important methodological aspects of design and analysis. This variability supports the extension of CONSORT guidelines to include the specific reporting of factorial trials.
authors.affiliation: Bristol Randomised Trials Collaboration, School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, UK. alan.a.montgomery@bristol.ac.uk
authors.forename: Alan A
authors.initials: AA
authors.lastname: Montgomery
authors.forename: Margaret P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Astin
authors.forename: Tim J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Peters
mesh_terms: D003153:Community Health Services / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D016001:Confidence Intervals; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D017408:Guidelines as Topic; D006302:Health Services Research; D006801:Humans; D057194:Intention to Treat Analysis; D015233:Models, Statistical; D011786:Quality Control; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D018401:Sample Size