Evaluating Intervention Reporting in Nursing Journal RCTs Using the TIDieR Checklist: A Cross‐Sectional Study

ABSTRACT

Aim

To assess the completeness of intervention reporting in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in nursing journals based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist.

Design

A cross‐sectional study.

Methods

RCTs published in English in nursing journals between January 2022 and December 2022 were identified through PubMed. Title‐ and abstract‐screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers to select eligible trials, from which data were extracted. Reports of interventions were likewise independently evaluated based on the TIDieR checklist. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate potential predictors for the compliance of TIDieR.

Results

Our analysis included 303 eligible trials, which generally adhered to most items on the TIDieR checklist, though adherence varied across the trials. Slightly fewer than half of the trials demonstrated good reporting quality. Poor reporting was associated in areas such as modifications, tailoring, and the type of locations where the intervention occurred. Additionally, suboptimal reporting on intervention adherence was noted. Compliance with TIDieR was found to be influenced by factors such as funding availability and the journal's ranking.

Conclusions

Our study revealed suboptimal reporting of the TIDieR items in RCTs published in nursing journals. More rigorous adherence to the TIDieR checklist is needed to improve the quality of intervention reporting. Additionally, comparing adherence before and after the implementation of TIDieR may be considered in future investigations.

Impact

This paper represents the first study to appraise the reporting quality of RCTs in nursing journals based on the TIDieR checklist. Evidence of suboptimal compliance of RCTs to the TIDieR checklist items is presented.

Patient or Public Contributions

No patient or public contribution applied.

Summary.

• What is already known

  • ○
    Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating clinical interventions.
  • ○
    Incomplete or unclear reporting of RCT interventions hinders the reproducibility and clinical applicability.
  • ○
    Previous studies have highlighted gaps in intervention reporting, especially for non‐pharmacological interventions.
• What this paper adds

  • ○
    The first study appraises the reporting quality of RCTs in nursing journals based on the TIDieR checklist.
  • ○
    Evidence of suboptimal compliance of RCTs to the TIDieR checklist items is observed.
  • ○
    RCTs published in nursing journals often lack of sufficient details in describing the interventions.
• Implications for practice/policy

  • ○
    The completeness and transparency of intervention reporting should be improved.
  • ○
    Authors should be encouraged to comply with the TIDieR in nursing journals to improve reporting quality of RCTs.
  • ○
    Journals should recommend or require authors to report their RCTs with reference to the TIDieR.

1. Introduction

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are widely recognised as the “gold standard” for conducting patient‐cerntered intervention research (Thompson 2021). With a judicious design and implementation, RCTs can provide high‐quality evidence for evaluating the effectiveness of clinical treatments and interventions (Lange et al. 2017; Monti et al. 2018; Steeger et al. 2021). Inadequate reporting of RCTs has been a widespread issue globally, leading to variability in the ability to interpret and apply findings to clinical practice across different healthcare systems (Jalloh et al. 2024). In an increasingly globalised healthcare landscape, it is crucial for RCT publications to report intervention details in a complete, clear, and transparent manner. Inadequate reporting not only hampers decision‐making at the clinical level but also contributes to the growing issue of research waste, which affects the global scientific community (Chalmers and Glasziou 2009; Glasziou et al. 2014). To address inadequate reporting of RCTs, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, first introduced in 1996 (Begg et al. 1996) and updated in 2001 (Moher, Schulz, and Altman 2001) and 2010, is a 25‐item checklist widely used for the reporting of parallel group trial reports (Moher et al. 2010). Furthermore, CONSORT extensions (checklists with modified or new items) have been developed (e.g., CONSORT‐PRO (patient‐reported outcomes), CONSORT‐Outcomes) for all types of trials (Butcher et al. 2022; Calvert et al. 2013). Strict adherence to CONSORT has been widely endorsed by high‐impact journals and the medical community.

While evidence suggests the improvement of RCT reporting since the publication, acceptance, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement (Turner et al. 2012), the quality of the reporting and the detailed descriptions of trial interventions remain insufficient for reliable replication (Candy et al. 2018; Dijkers 2021; Hoffmann, Erueti, and Glasziou 2013; Hoffmann et al. 2014). This issue is particularly prevalent in global healthcare research reports, especially those involving multistage, multidisciplinary, and non‐pharmaceutical interventions (Pool et al. 2020; Rhon et al. 2022). Copious evidence in the literature reflects this shortcoming. In evaluating 262 trials, Duff et al. (2010) found that only about 11% of chemotherapy trials comprehensively detailed their interventions (Duff et al. 2010). Glasziou et al. (2010) demonstrated that in back pain trials, only 13% of the interventions could be replicated (Glasziou et al. 2010). Hoffmann, Erueti, and Glasziou (2013) reported that only 39% of non‐pharmacological interventions were adequately described (Hoffmann, Erueti, and Glasziou 2013). Yamato et al. (2016) concluded that there is a prevalence issue with inadequate description of interventions in physical therapy‐based RCTs. Upon appraisal of 200 such trials, they found that 23% of trials failed to describe at least 6 out of the 12 items on the TIDieR checklist for intervention groups (Yamato et al. 2016). Moreover, deficiencies have been discerned in the protocol reporting for the control arms in trials as compared to the experimental arms (Vassar et al. 2020; Yu et al. 2018). On the whole, the resultant suboptimal interpretation of trial outcomes hampers not only the upstream translation of research results into clinical evidence but also the downstream implementation of clinical interventions in bedside settings.

Given the importance of adequate reporting of interventions in clinical trials, Hoffman et al. (2014) developed a 12‐item checklist and guide‐Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) (Hoffmann et al. 2014). It is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (Schulz, Altman, and Moher 2010) and the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement (Chan et al. 2013). TIDieR is an internationally recognised tool designed to capture essential elements of intervention descriptions and aims to guide and improve the completeness of reporting, thereby enhancing the replicability of interventions (Hoffmann et al. 2014). Unlike other reporting tools, which focus more broadly on overall study reporting, TIDieR provides detailed guidance on describing the content, delivery, and context of interventions (Cotterill et al. 2018). This specificity is particularly valuable in nursing research, where nursing interventions often involve complex, multi‐component procedures tailored to individual patient needs. Precise implementation of interventions is crucial for assessing their effectiveness and replicability. This not only enables clinicians and policymakers to appraise and adopt the interventions but also informs the development of evidence‐based patient‐care policies and recommendations. RCTs that are well‐designed, conducted, and reported play a central role in evaluating interventions' efficacy or effectiveness and potential harms. Nevertheless, the reporting quality of interventions in RCTs published in nursing journals has not been systematically reviewed. Against this background, our objectives were to:

1. summarise the general characteristics of published RCTs in nursing journals;

2. assess the reporting quality of interventions in publications describing RCTs in nursing journals; and

3. explore the potential predictors for the reporting quality of intervention.

2. Methods

2.1. Search Strategy

The literature search complied with PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021). The PubMed database was searched to identify RCTs between 1st January 2022 and 31st December 2022 in a list of nursing journals as per the 2022 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Clarivate Analytics 2022). To collect all potentially eligible RCTs, we utilised a two‐pathway search strategy. First, we used nursing journal titles as search terms. Second, we identified potential RCTs by extracting search terms from the sample search strategy in the Cochrane Handbook, section 6.4.13, which is designed for identifying RCTs in various databases. For example, in PubMed, we used search terms such as ‘randomised controlled trial [pt]’, ‘controlled clinical trial [pt]’, and ‘clinical trials as topic [mesh: noexp]’. These two pathways were combined with the Boolean term “OR”. The search strategy is detailed in File S1.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To enhance clarity and readability, the inclusion and exclusion criteria of publications are presented in the Table 1 below:

TABLE 1.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Had reported in RCTs, including parallel arm, cross‐over, and cluster trials study designs Had been published in English	Were secondary analyses, subgroup analyses, and cost‐effectiveness studies of previously published RCTs Were letters to the editor, RCT protocols, conference abstracts, systematic reviews, meta‐analyses, and case reports Were not focused on human subjects

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Retrieved records were processed through the EndNote X9 citation management software. Titles and abstract screening were independently performed by two researchers (HWB and LWH) based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria; Cohen's kappa (κ) statistic was used to examine the inter‐rater reliability. The full texts of potentially relevant articles were retrieved for further assessment for eligibility. Disagreements, if any, were resolved by discussion or consultation with the third researcher (WT).

The general characteristics of included RCTs were extracted: first author; study design (e.g., assignment, randomisation, blinding, and sample size); country of corresponding authors; number of authors; journal of publication; clinical trial registry number; features of participating centers (e.g., number and distribution of centers); type of disease studied; type of intervention (e.g., drug, surgery, traditional medicine therapy, and medical devices) and of control (e.g., solely placebo, solely active, and blank); and sponsoring agencies. Based on the scope of nursing research as defined by the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), the interventions in the RCTs were classified into clinical research, nursing education, or health systems and outcomes research (American Association of Colleges of Nursing 2006. AACN Position Statement on Nursing Research). The compliance of the TIDieR guide was independently assessed by two researchers (CLJ and YL). To ensure consistency in data extraction, two preliminary rounds of data extraction were first performed on a random basis comprising 10 included RCTs and then extended to all other RCTs.

2.4. Assessment of Reporting Quality of Interventions

The completeness of intervention reporting of the included RCTs was evaluated using the 12‐item TIDieR checklist. We chose the 12‐item TIDieR checklist to ensure consistency and comparability across the diverse range of interventions reported in the selected studies, which included various types of nursing interventions. This approach allowed us to maintain a standardised assessment method despite the diversity of the interventions. A pilot test on 10 RCTs was first conducted for reaching a consensus in evaluating the items of TIDieR.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the characteristics of the included RCTs. Frequency and percentages were computed for each item on the TIDieR checklist. The association between the characteristics of the RCTs and their compliance with the TIDieR items (> 80% vs. < 80%) (Hansford et al. 2022; Kattackal et al. 2020; van Ierssel et al. 2024) was analysed with logistic regression. Potential predictors were selected based on previous studies, including the 2022 impact factor of journals, number of authors, region of the authors, research participating centers (single‐ vs. multi‐center), sample size, trial registration (Yes vs. no), and funding support (Yes vs. No). Results of the logistic regression were presented using odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CIs). p‐value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Jamovi 2.3.21 was used for statistical data analysis. Additionally, we created a heat map to display the compliance of each included study with the TIDieR items, using blue to represent high compliance, pink for moderate compliance, and red for low compliance.

2.6. Ethical Considerations

This study was identified as methodological quality appraisal work and on consultation was deemed unsuitable for formal research ethics board review. All data collected were publicly available.

3. Results

3.1. Literature Search

Our search of the electronic databases yielded 393 records. Upon removal of duplicates and title‐ and abstract‐screening, 310 articles were identified. This was followed by full‐text assessment, during which six quasi‐experimental studies and one editorial material were further excluded. Eventually, 303 studies were included for analysis (Figure 1). A list of the included studies is shown in File S2.

FIGURE 1.

Flow diagram of the literature selection process.

3.2. General Characteristics of Included Studies

Of the 303 included studies published across 65 journals, the largest number originated from Turkey (n = 111, 36.6%), followed by China (n = 66, 21.8%), the United States (n = 23, 7.6%), and Iran (n = 16, 5.3%). In terms of the number of authors, most of the RCTs were conducted by two or more authors, with a median of 4 and a range from 1 to 22; of note, 11 RCTs have involved 10 or more authors. Of the 66 journals (File S3), seven had published 10 or more RCTs: Clinical Nursing Research (n = 22, 7.3%); Perspectives in Psychiatric Care (n = 18, 5.9%); Cancer Nursing (n = 15, 5.0%); International Journal of Nursing Studies (n = 14, 4.6%); International Journal of Nursing Practice (n = 10, 3.3%); European Journal of Oncology Nursing (n = 10, 3.3%); and Pain Management Nursing (n = 10, 3.3%). In terms of the scope of research, clinical research accounted for the majority of the trials (n = 212, 70.0%), whereas nursing education research accounted for about one third (n = 87, 28.7%). Almost all trials adopted a parallel‐arm study design (n = 283, 93.4%). The details of the general characteristics are presented in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Characteristics of included articles (n = 303).

Characteristic	N (%)
Country of first author
Turkey	111 (36.6)
China	66 (21.8)
USA	23 (7.6)
Iran	16 (5.3)
Australia	14 (4.6)
Others	73 (24.1)
Nursing journals a
Clinical Nursing Research (IF 1.7, Q3)	22 (7.3)
Perspectives in Psychiatric Care (IF 2.3, Q2)	18 (5.9)
Cancer Nursing (IF 2.6, Q1)	15 (5.0)
International Journal of Nursing Studies (IF 8.1, Q1)	14 (4.6)
International Journal of Nursing Practice (IF 1.9, Q3)	10 (3.3)
European Journal of Oncology Nursing (IF 2.8, Q1)	10 (3.3)
Pain Management Nursing (IF 1.7, Q3)	10 (3.3)
Others	204 (67.3)
Rank for journal impact factor (JCR)
Quartile 1	119 (39.3)
Quartile 2	79 (26.1)
Quartile 3	72 (23.8)
Quartile 4	31 (10.2)
Number of authors
< 2	4 (1.3)
2–5	158 (52.1)
5–10	130 (42.9)
≥ 10	11 (3.6)
Distribution of participating countries
Turkey	111 (36.6)
China	65 (21.5)
USA	22 (7.3)
Iran	17 (5.6)
Korea	8 (2.6)
Others	73 (24.1)
Was a clinical trial registration number provided?
Yes	185 (61.1)
No	118 (38.9)
Scope of research
Clinical Research	212 (70.0)
Nursing Education Research	87 (28.7)
Health Systems and Outcomes Research	4 (1.3)
Number of assigned groups
2	263 (86.8)
3	34 (11.2)
> 3	6 (2.0)
Type of RCT
Parallel	283 (93.4)
Cluster	13 (4.3)
Cross‐over	7 (2.3)
Type of blinding
Single	95 (31.4)
Double	20 (6.6)
Triple	10 (3.3)
Open label	67 (22.1)
Not reported	111 (36.6)
Sample size
≤ 100	187 (61.7)
101–300	103 (34.0)
> 300	13 (4.3)
Number of conducting centres
Single	244 (80.5)
Multiple (≥ 2)	59 (19.5)
Type of funding support
Public	121 (39.9)
Private	9 (3.0)
Reporting no funding	96 (31.7)
Not reported	77 (25.4)
Did the authors mention following CONSORT guidelines?
Yes	89 (29.4)
No	214 (70.6)

^a The impact factors were extracted from ISI Journal Citation Report 2023.

3.3. Reporting Quality of Included Studies

For the 303 included studies, the reporting quality varied substantially amongst different TIDieR checklist items. Nearly all of the trials (302, 99.7%) provided a complete name of the intervention. While 145 (47.9%) fully reported more than eight TIDieR items, none provided complete descriptions for all 12 items (Figure 2); the mean number of TIDieR items reported was 7.3 (range: 3–11), and mean compliance with the TIDieR checklist was 65.2% (SD = 13.2%). The heat map displays the level of compliance with each of the 12 TIDieR Items across the included RCTs (File S4). In summary, five TIDieR items were reported in over 80% of the studies, these items include (1) the name of the intervention; (2) intervention rationale; (3) description of materials; (4) description of procedures; and (5) number of times the intervention was delivered/timing, dose, and duration of the intervention. Contrarily, items that were least reported included modifications (5.0%), tailoring (21.5%), and the type of locations (27.7%) (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2.

Proportions of included studies (n = 303) for each TIDieR item.

3.4. Factors Associated With Reporting Compliance of Interventions

From the results of simple logistic regression, the journal's impact factor (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.17–1.71) and the availability of funding support (OR = 1.79, 95% CI: 1.13–2.84) were significantly associated with higher compliance with the TIDieR items (defined as ≥ 80% compliance of TIDieR items). No significant associations were found for the number of authors, use of blinding, number of participating centers, sample size, compliance with CONSORT guidelines, or registration of protocols (Table 3). When significant predictors in simple logistic regression were entered into a multiple logistic regression, both the journal's impact factor (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.15–1.68, p = 0.001) and the availability of funding support (OR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.03–2.66, p = 0.037) remained significantly associated with better compliance with the TIDieR items (File S5, Table S1).

TABLE 3.

Association between characteristics of studies and proportion of TIDieR provided: binary logistic regression analysis.

Independent variable	≥ 80% of TIDieR items vs. < 80%
	OR (95% CI)	p
No of authors	1.03 (0.95–1.12)	0.480
Blinding (vs. unblinding)	1.51 (0.95–2.39)	0.080
Funding support (vs. no funding support)	1.79 (1.13–2.84)	0.013
Single center (vs. multiple centers)	1.15 (0.65–2.05)	0.625
Impact factor	1.42 (1.17–1.71)	< 0.001
Sample size	1.00 (0.99–1.00)	0.989
Comply Consort guidelines (vs. did not comply)	1.05 (0.64–1.72)	0.847
Trial Registration (vs. no registration)	1.43 (0.90–2.29)	0.133

Note: Bold values indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05).

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; OR, odds ratio.

4. Discussion

4.1. Findings and Interpretations

Following the identification of 303 RCTs published in nursing journals in 2022 through a literature search. We undertook a comprehensive appraisal of the reporting quality of their interventions based on the 12‐item TIDieR checklist. On the whole, the reporting quality of the interventions in the trials was suboptimal, demonstrating a mean compliance rate of only 65.2%. Of note, the reporting quality varied substantially across different items: five of the 12 TIDieR items had compliance rates higher than 80.0%, whereas another three items had compliance rates lower than 30.0%. Furthermore, our findings indicate a significant gap in trial registration, with 38.9% of included RCTs lacking reported registration details. This gap suggests a potential lack of awareness or adherence to registration guidelines amongst nurse researchers. Prospective registration of RCTs is a widely endorsed best practice (Azar et al. 2019). While many journals emphasise the importance of prospective registration, this practice is not uniformly enforced. This inconsistency underscores the necessity for authors to comply with CONSORT guidelines to improve transparency and trust in clinical research. Increased compliance with these standards is crucial for promoting research integrity.

In parallel with literature (Jellison et al. 2020; Pool et al. 2020; Torgerson et al. 2020), the overwhelming majority of the studies (> 90%) stated a brief name of the intervention, reported the rationale of the intervention, and described the procedure. This is not surprising, as study designs of many nursing researchers and clinicians base their study design on theoretical models. Explicit formulation of these theories of change and hypotheses (Breuer et al. 2016) would improve the evaluation of complex health interventions. Compliance rates were insufficient for Items 7, 9, and 10 of the TIDieR checklists.

Our study revealed that only 27.7% of the included RCTs have described the specific location and facilities where the intervention occurred. Adequate descriptions of such locations and infrastructures are important, since reproducing a given RCT in different clinical settings may yield dissimilar results with regard to the feasibility of and adherence to its interventions (Hoffmann et al. 2014). Notably, the infrastructures used in included RCTs likely varied across countries, as the majority of the RCTs were conducted outside of the USA. Geographical variations in health services have been documented in a wide range of fields (Hofmann 2022) and might influence reporting standards due to cultural differences in research practices and regulatory requirements. Some countries may emphasise detailed procedural documentation, while others focus on outcomes. Additionally, regulatory standards vary, with some regions enforcing comprehensive reporting more rigorously than others. These differences affect the quality and completeness of reporting, highlighting the need for international harmonisation of standards to ensure consistent and reliable global clinical trials.

Our study revealed that only 21.5% of the included RCTs have described their tailoring (Item 9), and only 5% reported their modifications (Item 10). Critically, such sparse reporting for Items 9 and 10 highlighted the inadequate attention paid by those authors to the tailoring and modifications in their RCTs. In clinical research, ideal interventions should continuously be adjusted based on not only patient's feedback but also interventionists' adjustments based on individual patients' responses (Tuttle and Hazle 2021). Thus, both tailoring and modifications should be detailed in publications, since their omission will compromise the reproducibility and generalizability of the RCT findings. Moreover, our study indicated that nearly half of the included RCTs have not reported how well their interventions were planned (item 11) and how well their interventions were delivered as planned (Item 12). In a given RCT, poor adherence to treatments diminishes both the study power and the significance of treatment effects, thus compromising the validity of the findings (Shiovitz et al. 2016). Accordingly, to uphold methodological robustness, comprehensive reporting of Items 11 and 12 is imperative.

Two predictors were associated with an improved reporting quality of the interventions. RCTs with funding appeared to be a predictor for rigorous reporting of methodologies. This might unsurprisingly be attributed to sufficient financial support that granted necessary resources and expertise to conduct high‐quality research. Corroboratively, industry‐funded studies have been reported in the literature to be more likely to have adequate allocation concealment, describe blinding procedures, and report patient withdrawals (Djulbegovic et al. 2013). RCTs published in nursing journals with a high impact factor registered a better overall reporting quality than those with a low impact factor. This finding suggests that more established journals may more proactively prioritise and promote rigorous reporting practices. Lastly, our study also showed that an a priori trial registration appeared to contribute to a superior reporting quality, although the difference was not statistically significant. Given the importance of trial registration in minimising bias, especially publication and reporting biases (Harvey 2017), Journals and academic institutions should intensify efforts to raise awareness amongst nurse researchers and ensure compliance with prospective trial registration to improve the credibility and reproducibility of nursing research.

4.2. Comparison of Our Findings With Other Studies

Despite the advent of evidence‐based checklists, copious evidence in the literature has demonstrated the suboptimal reporting quality of interventions in RCTs across various fields, indicating a need for improvement. Yamato et al. (2016) have reported the completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy‐related RCTs, of which almost a quarter (23%) did not describe at least half of the TIDieR items (Yamato et al. 2016). In addition, McEwen et al. (2019) highlighted that only 8.8 out of the 12 TIDieR items were detailed for poststroke exercise program interventions (McEwen et al. 2019). Webster et al. (2019) found that only 8 out of the 12 items were reported in placebo‐ and sham‐controlled trials published in the top six general medical journals (Webster et al. 2019), while Palmer et al. (2021) found that only 8.6 such items were reported in high‐impact cardiology journals (Palmer et al. 2021).

Compared to these studies, our findings discerned that only 7.3 out of the 12 TIDieR items were reported for the intervention by the RCTs in nursing journals. Two reasons might explain this lower proportion. Firstly, nursing interventions are mostly non‐pharmacological and thus often lack detailed reporting. This is further compounded by inconsistent reporting of the intervention group and the control group, the latter often being loosely or vaguely described as routine care, which may differ from one bedside setting to another. It follows that such lack of clarity not only hinders other researchers' evaluation of the interventions in question but also may even lead to erroneous replication. Secondly, journal‐imposed space constraints and word limits on authors may obstruct them from providing thorough descriptions of their RCT interventions. Evidence based on 141 studies in nursing journals has shown that only 7% of the space in an article was devoted to describing the intervention (Conn 2012). Accordingly, such editorial considerations must be balanced against the comprehensiveness of the reporting, especially in view of the practical implication that incomplete reporting frustrates the translation of nursing‐research results into clinical evidence.

4.3. Strengths and Limitations

This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of RCTs published in nursing journals, focusing on the quality of interventions‐reporting based on the TIDieR checklist. Our study contributes valuable insights to the existing body of knowledge in this area. Of note, this study has not restricted the types of interventions or types of disease in the included RCTs, in order to maximise the coverage and thus the generalizability of the results. Logistic analyses were also conducted to explore potential factors affecting the reporting quality of the interventions. However, three limitations are noteworthy. First, only RCTs published in nursing journals in 2022 were included; thus, interpretations of our results should be contextualised to the said time‐frame and journals. Second, only RCTs published in English were included. Inadvertent omissions of otherwise eligible trials in other languages may not have been captured by us, which could introduce bias. Third, while our analysis provides insights into the completeness of intervention reporting in RCTs published in nursing journals, it is important to acknowledge that the study may not represent all nursing journals.

4.4. Implications on Practice and Further Research

Our study highlights the need for further improvement in the reporting quality of interventions in RCTs. Such unsatisfactory reporting quality may be attributed to a lack of awareness amongst authors and inconsistent implementation by journals. It is crucial to recognise that findings from well‐conducted RCTs represent the highest‐order clinical evidence. Within this context, we endorse the obligatory use of the TIDieR checklist as a viable solution in guiding authors to better detail their interventions. We recommend that researchers employ the checklist to ensure a comprehensive and systematic description of interventions in their manuscripts. Improved intervention reporting will thus enable not only researchers to synthesise and replicate the reported evidence but also clinicians to appraise and adopt the interventions.

Additionally, we recommend that journal editors, peer reviewers, and regulatory agencies adopt and mandate the reporting of all relevant aspects of interventions in RCTs. As custodians of RCT publications, these stakeholders' support can contribute to improving the overall reporting quality. Lastly, we also suggest that future studies examine the reporting quality of interventions through a pre‐ and post‐TIDieR comparison to determine its utility in improving the reporting quality of interventions.

5. Conclusions

Interventions for RCTs published in nursing journals have not been characterised in a sufficiently detailed manner, and the reporting quality of these RCTs was suboptimal. Given the central role of RCTs in clinical research, improving the transparency and completeness of intervention descriptions is essential for advancing healthcare and supporting evidence‐based policy development. Additionally, factors such as funding support and journal type appear to positively influence reporting quality, suggesting that both research funding structures and journal policies could play a role in improving reporting standards. Future efforts should focus on promoting the widespread adoption of standardised reporting tools, such as the TIDieR checklist, across nursing journals. Identifying and addressing barriers to comprehensive reporting is crucial. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are needed to assess the impact of improved reporting on clinical outcomes and the adoption of evidence‐based interventions.

Ethics Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

Consent

The authors have nothing to report.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Peer Review

The peer review history for this article is available at https://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway/wos/peer‐review/10.1111/jan.16744.

Supporting information

File S1.

File S2.

File S3.

File S4.

File S5.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.