↓ Skip to main content

Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide

Overview of attention for article published in British Medical Journal, March 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
policy
3 policy sources
twitter
375 tweeters
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
7 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
3054 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2368 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide
Published in
British Medical Journal, March 2014
DOI 10.1136/bmj.g1687
Pubmed ID
Authors

T. C. Hoffmann, P. P. Glasziou, I. Boutron, R. Milne, R. Perera, D. Moher, D. G. Altman, V. Barbour, H. Macdonald, M. Johnston, S. E. Lamb, M. Dixon-Woods, P. McCulloch, J. C. Wyatt, A.-W. Chan, S. Michie

Abstract

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face to face panel meeting. The resultant 12 item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actual)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with an explanation and elaboration for each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 375 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2,368 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 25 1%
Portugal 3 <1%
United States 3 <1%
Australia 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
France 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
Netherlands 2 <1%
Other 13 <1%
Unknown 2309 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 438 18%
Researcher 414 17%
Student > Master 377 16%
Other 141 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 140 6%
Other 541 23%
Unknown 317 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 654 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 398 17%
Psychology 296 13%
Social Sciences 163 7%
Neuroscience 62 3%
Other 294 12%
Unknown 501 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 282. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2021.
All research outputs
#69,662
of 17,989,531 outputs
Outputs from British Medical Journal
#1,370
of 53,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#732
of 195,553 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Medical Journal
#14
of 764 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,989,531 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 53,073 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 195,553 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 764 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.