The better part of a recent weekend was spent putting together a bookshelf from a "build-it-yourself" furniture kit with my son. It was clear early on that the author of the instructions was much more familiar with the process than we were. The instructions also seemed to have a number of "holes," making it necessary to guess about parts of the process. (Also, we found that despite the no-tools-needed instructions, some parts fit together much better after a few whacks from a hammer). Clear, complete instructions make assembling furniture much easier. In much the same way, clear, complete instructions are even more important to allow translation, implementation, and replication of research evidence.

As part of our entry-level professional education, all physical therapists take coursework that includes research theory and study design. This coursework typically includes assignments wherein students critique published research articles. Assignments typically involve evaluating the design and execution of the study, verifying that all variables are defined, checking that measures and tools are described, and that the analytical approach is appropriate. Students often delight in reproaching articles in which they have identified flaws and missing elements in these reports. In an effort to assist JNPT authors in verifying that all essential elements have been reported, back in January of 2015, JNPT signed on as one of the rehabilitation journals requiring the use of standardized reporting guidelines (for a refresher see, the Editor's Note in the JNPT April 2014 issue).1

Clear and complete descriptions of the study methods are essential, both for validating the findings through replication, and for translating the evidence to clinical practice. For translation, implementation, and replication of rehabilitation-related clinical trials, the description of the study methods must include a full and detailed description of the intervention. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist was developed to facilitate the complete reporting of interventions used in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).2 Unfortunately, a recent review of 200 RCTs found that more than 50% of the items on the TIDieR checklist describing the intervention were missing from a quarter of the RCT reports.3 Moreover, for the control condition, more than 50% of the items were missing in three-fourths of the reports.

In this issue of JNPT, van Vliet et al4 report on their experience using the TIDieR checklist for describing a strength training intervention for individuals with stroke. As the authors note, the TIDieR checklist provides useful prompts regarding specific information to be reported about the intervention. However, as the authors also note, refinement of the checklist to include additional items may be warranted to optimize its value. Readers who are interested in learning more about standardized reporting, including the TIDieR checklist, are invited to view a webinar on this topic developed by the International Society of Physiotherapy Journal Editors (ISPJE)5 (http://www.wcpt.org/ispje/governance).

While JNPT currently does not mandate the use of the TIDieR checklist, it is possible that this will be a requirement in the future for reporting of RCTs. However, while use of the checklist is not mandated, authors are strongly encouraged to use the checklist as a way to improve the completeness and clarity of reporting. Readers are also encouraged to become familiar with the checklist as it provides a valuable way to gauge the quality of a report. Perhaps someday we will be able to achieve optimal outcomes for all our patients, beginning with access to excellent instructions.

REFERENCES