AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Des Jarlais, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Crepaz, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Des Jarlais, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Crepaz, N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Public Health Practice
Right arrow Other Statistics/Evaluation/Research
September 2004, Vol 94, No. 9 | American Journal of Public Health 1474-1475
© 2004 American Public Health Association

LETTER

DES JARLAIS ET AL. RESPOND

Don C. Des Jarlais, PhD, Cynthia Lyles, PhD and Nicole Crepaz, PhD

Don C. Des Jarlais is with the Chemical Dependency Institute, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY. Cynthia Lyles and Nicole Crepaz are with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Don C. Des Jarlais, PhD, Beth Israel Medical Center, Chemical Dependency Institute, First Avenue at 16th St, New York, NY 10003 (e-mail: dcdesjarla{at}aol.com).

First, we would like to note our appreciation of Dzewaltowski and colleagues’ overall support for the TREND statement. There seems to be strong agreement that standards for the reporting of nonrandomized evaluations are greatly needed and that the TREND statement is an important step in this direction. However, the TREND statement is still clearly a work in progress.

Dzewaltowski et al. suggest that the cost of the intervention be included in the TREND reporting items. Malcolm Potts (written communication, March 9, 2002) has also suggested inclusion of cost data. At the time of the TREND journal editors’ meeting, other groups were working on reporting standards for costeffectiveness studies, and the TREND group decided to wait until those had been completed before drafting items for reporting costs. We do agree that cost information is of great importance and should be included in evaluation reports.

Most of Dzewaltowski et al.’s comments concern the issue of external validity, including the representativeness of the settings and of the intervention staff. The first version of the TREND statement was developed as a counterpart to the CONSORT statement,1 which mainly focuses on issues of internal validity. Items 3 (description of the settings in which the intervention was studied) and 22 (external validity as a topic in the discussion section) do address external validity, but we agree that much more is needed to develop standards for the reporting of external-validity data. External-validity issues are of great importance for behavioral and public health interventions; an intervention that is highly effective in some settings may be completely ineffective in other settings. It will be critical to extend the TREND ideas to research studies that specifically focus on externalvalidity issues, such as studies that systematically examine the effectiveness of an intervention in different settings. We can envision an additional set of reporting standards for addressing external validity, regardless of whether the original internalvalidity evaluation study used a randomized or a nonrandomized design.

We invite all persons interesting in contributing to this discussion to e-mail the TREND group (TREND{at}cdc.gov) and to visit the TREND Web site (http://www.TRENDstatement.org). We plan to create linkages from the TREND Web site to the Web sites of other groups interested in these issues, such as Dzewaltowski and colleagues’ RE-AIM (Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) group (http://www.re-aim.org).

Reference

1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT Statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001;357:1191–1194.





This Article
Right arrow Extract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Des Jarlais, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Crepaz, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Des Jarlais, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Crepaz, N.
Related Collections
Right arrow Public Health Practice
Right arrow Other Statistics/Evaluation/Research

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Public Health Association