Completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy randomized controlled trials: a cross-sectional analysis using the TIDieR checklist

Objectives To evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting in physiotherapy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2020 and 2024 using the TIDieR checklist and compare experimental and control interventions.Methods This cross-sectional meta-research included RCTs from four leading physiotherapy and rehabilitation journals. Intervention reporting was assessed using the 12-item TIDieR checklist, incorporating published protocols and supplementary materials where available. Items were classified as fully, partially, or not reported. Reporting completeness was compared using Welch’s t-test and Pearson’s chi-square test.Results Eighty-two RCTs comprising 158 intervention descriptions (84 experimental; 74 control) were included. Experimental interventions had greater reporting completeness than controls (mean TIDieR score 0.85 ± 0.10 vs 0.67 ± 0.24; t = 6.17, p < 0.001; Cohen’s d = 1.03). Provider characteristics (24%), setting (24%), and fidelity (55%) were the least completely reported items. Control interventions showed poorer reporting of provider characteristics (χ2 = 19.38, p < 0.001), setting (χ2 = 13.49, p = 0.001), and fidelity (χ2 = 23.79, p < 0.001).Conclusion Core intervention components were generally well reported, but important deficiencies persisted in provider characteristics, setting, and fidelity, particularly for comparator interventions. Greater TIDieR adherence may improve reproducibility and clinical translation.