In 2017, the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children’s orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(5):422–424

Background. FORECAST is a prospective longitudinal cohort study exploring mechanism-based prognostic factors for pain persistence in sciatica. Here, we share an update on this largest deeply-phenotyped primary care sciatica cohort. Methods/results. Our cohort includes 180 people with sciatica (score >4 on Stynes’ Sum Score), aged 18–85, within 3 months of symptom onset. Psychosocial factors, self-reported sensory profiling, clinical examination, quantitative sensory testing (QST), biological samples (blood and skin samples), and Magnetic Resonance Neurography of lumbar nerve roots were collected at baseline. Pain persistence was determined at three and twelve months with the Sciatica Bothersomeness Index (SBI) and a numeric pain rating scale (NRS) as primary outcomes. Recruitment nears completion, with 160 participants enrolled to date. 127 and 96 participants have completed 3 and 12 months follow-up respectively. Overall, 56% of our cohort are female, with a mean age (SD) of 54.14yrs (16.57). Ethnicity data approximates local populations. SBI at baseline was (median [IQR]) 13[10-17], and interim longitudinal data shows stepwise improvement at 3 and 12 months. Baseline ‘average’ pain intensity was 5.56 (2.15) for leg pain, and 4.14(2.82) for low back pain (LBP). Overall, pain scores decreased at 3 and 12 months, with greater reductions in leg pain than LBP at 12 months. However, around 55–80% and 40–65% of people reported persistent pain at 3 and 12 months respectively. Conclusion. Leg pain severity was moderate and higher than LBP at baseline. All primary outcome measures demonstrate improvement over time, however 40–65% of patients report persistent pain at 12 months. Conflicts of interest. LR: Paid facilitation of post-graduate courses internationally. SK, MT, FP, KM, WS, CP, CR, SC: No conflicts of interest. GC: Editor in Chief of Health Psychology Review. Director of board of directors, MentalCHealth Care setting NoordWestVlaanderen. JF: Copyright holder of ODI (Oswestry Disability Index). Served on a data monitoring committee for a clinical trial of 2 different surgical approaches to cervical disc herniation (FORVAD). Member of HTA Prioritisation Committee B: Inside hospital Care from 2015-February 2019. Member of HTA Interventional Procedures Panel from 2010–2015. Trustee and board member of 3 spine related charities – Back to Back; British Scoliosis Research Foundation and BackCare. Expert instructed by both claimant and defendant solicitors in negligence and person injury cases. GB: Paid consultancy (RNA-seq) with Ivy Farm and Coding.bio. ABS: Paid post-graduate lecturing internationally. Co-chair NeupSig sciatica working group (unpaid). Sources of funding. This project is funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the UKRI Strategic Priorities Fund (SPF) Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP), a co-funded initiative by UKRI (MRC, BBSRC, ESRC), Versus Arthritis, the Medical Research Foundation and Eli Lilly and Company Ltd (Grant MR/W027003/1). Additional funding has been received from the back to back charity to expand longitudinal components of the study. LR has received support with PhD fees from the CSP charitable trust. ABS is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical Career Development Fellowship. (222101/Z/20/Z). WS is partly funded through the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. FP is funded by a Dorothy Hodgkin Career Development Fellowship in Chemistry in association with Somerville College. GB is supported by the Wellcome Trust (223149/Z/21/Z) and Diabetes UK (19/0005984). GC and KRM are partly funded by UKRI and Versus Arthritis as part of the Advanced Pain Discovery Platform (APDP) PAINSTORM (MR/W002388/1). The UKRI and Versus Arhthritis (APDP) are the major funders of FORECAST. All other funders provided either some people support, or funded projects with legacy data that we reuse

Background and Purpose. The UK's NIHR and Australia's NHMRC have funded two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine if lumbar fusion surgery (LFS) is more effective than best conservative care (BCC) for adults with persistent, severe low back pain (LBP) attributable to lumbar spine degeneration. We aimed to describe clinicians’ decision-making regarding suitability of patient cases for LFS or BCC and level of equipoise to randomise participants in the RCTs. Methods. Two online cross-sectional surveys distributed via UK and Australian professional networks to clinicians involved in LBP care, collected data on clinical discipline, practice setting and preferred care of five patient cases (ranging in age, pain duration, BMI, imaging findings, neurological signs/symptoms). Clinicians were also asked about willingness to randomise each patient case. Results. Of 174 responses (73 UK, 101 Australia), 70 were orthopaedic surgeons, 34 neurosurgeons, 65 allied health professionals (AHPs), 5 others. Most worked in public health services only (92% UK, 45% Australia), or a mix of public/private (36% Australia). Most respondents chose BCC as their first-choice management option for all five cases (81–93% UK, 83–91% Australia). For LFS, UK surgeons preferred TLIF (36.4%), whereas Australian surgeons preferred ALIF (54%). Willingness to randomise cases ranged from 37–60% (UK mean 50.7%), and 47–55% (Australian mean 51.9%); orthopaedic and neuro-surgeons were more willing than AHPs. Conclusion. Whilst BCC was preferred for all five patient cases, just over half of survey respondents in both the UK and Australia were willing to randomise cases to either LFS or BCC, indicating clinical equipoise (collective uncertainty) needed for RCT recruitment. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No specific funding obtained for the surveys. DB, SA, AG and NEF have funding from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) UK (FORENSIC-UK NIHR134859); NEF, DB and SA have funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC FORENSIC-Australia GA268233). AG has funding from Orthopaedic Research UK (combined with British Association of Spine Surgeons and British Scoliosis Society) and Innovate UK. NEF is funded through an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Investigator Grant (ID: 2018182)

Low back pain (LBP) is the main cause of disability worldwide and is primarily triggered by intervertebral disc degeneration (IDD). Although several treatment options exist, no therapeutic tool has demonstrated to halt the progressive course of IDD. Therefore, several clinical trials are being conducted to investigate different strategies to regenerate the intervertebral disc, with numerous studies not reaching completion nor being published. The aim of this study was to analyze the publication status of clinical trials on novel regenerative treatments for IDD by funding source and identify critical obstacles preventing their conclusion. Prospective clinical trials investigating regenerative treatments for IDD and registered on . ClinicalTrials.gov. were included. Primary outcomes were publication status and investigational treatment funding. Fisher's exact test was utilized to test the association for categorical variables between groups. 25 clinical trials were identified. Among these, only 6 (24%) have been published. The most common source of funding was university (52%), followed by industry (36%) and private companies (12%). Investigational treatments included autologous (56%) or allogeneic (12%) products alone or in combination with a carrier or delivery system (32%). The latter were more likely utilized in industry or privately funded studies (Fig. 1, p=0.0112). No significant difference was found in terms of funding regarding the publication status of included trials (Table 1, p=0.9104). Most clinical trials investigating regenerative approaches for the treatment of IDD were never completed nor published. This is likely due to multiple factors, including difficult enrollment, high dropout rate, and publication bias. 3. More accurate design and technical support from stakeholders and clinical research organization (CROs) may likely increase the quality of future clinical trials in the field. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

There is little known about how patient socioeconomic status impacts clinical outcomes in hip preservation surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between indices of multiple deprivation, funding provider (NHS Funded or Private Funded) and clinical outcomes following surgery for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The study analysed the data of 5590 patients recorded in the NAHR who underwent primary hip arthroscopic treatment for FAI between November 2013 and July 2023. Records were matched to the UK National index of multiple deprivation using the lower layer super output area. Using iHOT12 score, patient reported outcome measures were analysed at base line and 1 year following surgery. 2358 records were matched to LLSOA deciles. Between the lowest (most deprived) 3 deciles and the highest (least deprived) the average baseline iHOT12 score was 28.98 (n=366) and 35.33 (n=821). The proportion of patients receiving treatment through NHS funding compared to independent funding for the most deprived, 292 (90%) 37 (10%) respectively compared to the least deprived 515 (70%) and 244 (30%) respectively. At 1year, iHOT12 scores for each group were 51.64 (29.1 SD) compared to 61.5 (28.06 SD) respectively. The study demonstrates that patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds had poorer baseline and one-year post-surgery iHOT12 scores compared to those from higher socioeconomic strata. Furthermore, a higher reliance on NHS funding was observed among the most deprived, while more affluent patients predominantly opted for private funding. These findings underscore the significant influence of socioeconomic status on both the quality of healthcare received and recovery outcomes in hip preservation surgery, calling attention to the need for more equitable healthcare solutions

Pacific people in New Zealand experience significant disparity in health outcomes. There is little known about the burden of arthritis within this community or difficulties accessing specialist orthopaedic care. This qualitative study evaluated the experiences of Pacific patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty with a goal to identify barriers to accessing arthroplasty for this community. We interviewed Pacific patients within the Bay of Plenty region who had received either elective hip or knee arthroplasty between 2013 and 2022. Interviews were centred on perceptions of arthritis severity, duration of symptoms, primary care and specialist interactions. Patients were encouraged to offer feedback on ways to improve this experience. We identified 6087 publicly funded primary joints performed in Tauranga hospital and 58 patients were of Pacific ethnicity. After exclusion criteria was applied, we successfully interviewed 20 patients eligible for our study. Pacific patients represented 2.9% of the of the BOP catchment but only received 0.43% of the publicly funded joints. Most reported reluctance to seek help from primary care until symptoms were present for at least a year. Most commonly cited reasons for not seeking help were fear of hospital services and lack of awareness in the community about osteoarthritis. We identified a lack of community awareness of osteoarthritis and arthroplasty among Pacific. This may result in delayed presentation to primary care and decreased utilisation of publicly funded joint surgery. It is reassuring that most patients of Pacific ethnicity who receive primary hip or knee arthroplasty report a positive experience. Public health initiatives together with positive feedback from Pacific patients who have undergone surgery will help to increase awareness of arthroplasty as an option to restore function and relieve pain

Background. Involving research users in setting priorities for research is essential to ensure research outcomes are patient-centred and to maximise research value and impact. The Musculoskeletal (MSK) Disorders Research Advisory Group Versus Arthritis led a research priority setting exercise across MSK disorders. Methods. The Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHRNI) method of setting research priorities with a range of stakeholders were utilised. The MSKD RAG identified, through consensus, four research Domains: Mechanisms of Disease; Diagnosis and Impact; Living Well with MSK disorders and Successful Translation. Following ethical approval, the research priority exercise involved four stages and two surveys, to: 1) gather research uncertainties; 2) consolidate these; 3) score uncertainties using agreed criteria of importance and impact on a score of 1–10; and 4) analyse scoring, for prioritisation. Results. The first survey had 209 respondents, who described 1290 research uncertainties, which were refined into 68 research questions. 285 people responded to the second survey. The largest group of respondents represented patients and carers, followed by researchers and healthcare professionals. A ranked list was produced, with scores ranging between 12 and 18. Key priorities included developing and testing new treatments, better targeting of treatments, early diagnosis, prevention and better understanding and management of pain, with an emphasis on understanding underpinning mechanisms. Conclusions. For the first time, we have summarised priorities for research across MSKD, from discovery science to applied clinical and health research, including translation. We present a call to action to researchers and funders to target these priorities. Conflict of Interest: None. Sources of funding: We thank the funder, Versus Arthritis for their support of the research advisory groups and this activity

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a degenerative disease that lacks regenerative treatment options. Current research focuses on mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) and Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) as regenerative therapies, but extracellular vesicles (EVs) have shown to be more advantageous. This study compares the regenerative potential of human umbilical cord MSC-derived EVs (cEVs) and platelet-derived EVs (pEVs) in ex vivo and in vivo OA models. In the ex vivo study, OA conditions were induced in human cartilage explants, which were then treated either with pEVs or cEVs. Results showed a higher content of DNA and collagen in the pEVs group compared to control and cEVs groups, suggesting that pEVs could be a potential alternative to cEVs. In the in vivo study, an OA model was established in the knee joints of rats through MIA (monoiodoacetate) injection and then treated either with pEVs or cEVs. Results showed that pEVs-treated knee joints had better subchondral bone integrity and greater OA reversion, particularly in female rats, indicating that pEVs are a viable regeneration treatment for OA and outperform cEVs in terms of efficacy. Overall, the study demonstrates the potential of EVs as a regenerative treatment for OA, with pEVs showing promising results in both ex vivo and in vivo models. The use of pEVs in clinical practice could provide a faster path to translation due to the established use of platelet concentrates in therapeutics. However, further studies are needed to fully evaluate the potential of pEVs for OA treatment and to elucidate the mechanisms behind their regenerative effects. Acknowledgments: The authors thank Dr Fernando Hierro (UIB) for their technical contribution with TEM, Mª Trinidad García (UIB) for the access to radioactivity facilities, Aina Arbós (IUNICS) for her contribution in the histology staining, María Tortosa (IdISBa) for her assistance with the animal care and ADEMA School of Dentistry for the access to the cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Funding: This research was funded by Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, co-funded by the ESF European Social Fund and the ERDF European Regional Development Fund (MS16/00124; CP16/00124), PROGRAMA JUNIOR del proyecto TALENT PLUS, construyendo SALUD, generando VALOR (JUNIOR01/18), financed by the sustainable tourism tax of the Balearic Islands; the Direcció General d'Investigació and Conselleria d'Investigació, Govern Balear (FPI/2046/2017); the Mecanisme de Recuperació i Resiliència, intended to execute research projects of «Noves polítiques públiques per a un mercat de treball dinàmic, resilient i inclusiu», collected in Pla de Recuperació, Transformació i Resiliència, financed by European Union-Next Generation EU and driven by SOIB and Conselleria de Fons Europeus, Universitat i Cultura i la Conselleria de Model Econòmic, Turisme i Treball (NG0421) and the grant SYN20/03 from IdISBa

Aims. The primary aim of the survey was to map the current provision of simulation training within UK and Republic of Ireland (RoI) trauma and orthopaedic (T&O) specialist training programmes to inform future design of a simulation based-curriculum. The secondary aims were to characterize; the types of simulation offered to trainees by stage of training, the sources of funding for simulation, the barriers to providing simulation in training, and to measure current research activity assessing the educational impact of simulation. Methods. The development of the survey was a collaborative effort between the authors and the British Orthopaedic Association Simulation Group. The survey items were embedded in the Performance and Opportunity Dashboard, which annually audits quality in training across several domains on behalf of the Speciality Advisory Committee (SAC). The survey was sent via email to the 30 training programme directors in March 2019. Data were retrieved and analyzed at the Warwick Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Results. Overall, 28 of 30 programme directors completed the survey (93%). 82% of programmes had access to high-fidelity simulation facilities such as cadaveric laboratories. More than half (54%) had access to a non-technical skills simulation training. Less than half (43%) received centralized funding for simulation, a third relied on local funding such as the departmental budget, and there was a heavy reliance on industry sponsorship to partly or wholly fund simulation training (64%). Provision was higher in the mid-stages (ST3-5) compared to late-stages (ST6-8) of training, and was formally timetabled in 68% of prostgrammes. There was no assessment of the impact of simulation training using objective behavioural measures or real-world clinical outcomes. Conclusion. There is currently widespread, but variable, provision of simulation in T&O training in the UK and RoI, which is likely to expand further with the new curriculum. It is important that research activity into the impact of simulation training continues, to develop an evidence base to support investment in facilities and provision

Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a new class of drug that can be used to express a therapeutic protein and, in contrast to DNA, is safer and inexpensive. Among its advantages, mRNA will immediately begin to express its encoded protein in the cell cytoplasm. The protein will be expressed for a period of time, after which the mRNA is degraded. There is no risk of genetic damage, one of the concerns with plasmid DNA (pDNA) used in traditional gene therapy approaches. Nevertheless, mRNA application in tissue regeneration and regenerative medicine remains limited. In this case, mRNA must overcome its main hurdles: immunogenicity, lack of stability, and intracellular delivery. Research has been done to overcome these limitations, and the future of mRNA seems promising for tissue repair. 1,2. This keynote talk will address questions including: What are the opportunities for mRNA to improve outcomes in musculoskeletal tissue repair, in particular bone and cartilage? What are the key factors and challenges to expediting this technology to patient treatment (beyond COVID-19 vaccination)?. Acknowledgements: E.R.B thanks the cmRNAbone project funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the grant agreement no. 874790 and the NIH R01 AR074395 from NIAMS for funding her mRNA work

Aims. This study aims to identify the top unanswered research priorities in the field of knee surgery using consensus-based methodology. Methods. Initial research questions were generated using an online survey sent to all 680 members of the British Association for Surgery of the Knee (BASK). Duplicates were removed and a longlist was generated from this scoping exercise by a panel of 13 experts from across the UK who provided oversight of the process. A modified Delphi process was used to refine the questions and determine a final list. To rank the final list of questions, each question was scored between one (low importance) and ten (high importance) in order to produce the final list. Results. This consensus exercise took place between December 2020 and April 2022. A total of 286 clinicians from the BASK membership provided input for the initial scoping exercise, which generated a list of 105 distinct research questions. Following review and prioritization, a longlist of 51 questions was sent out for two rounds of the Delphi process. A total of 42 clinicians responded to the first round and 24 responded to the second round. A final list of 24 research questions was then ranked by 36 clinicians. The topics included arthroplasty, infection, meniscus, osteotomy, patellofemoral, cartilage, and ligament pathologies. The management of early osteoarthritis was the highest-ranking question. Conclusion. A Delphi exercise involving the BASK membership has identified the future research priorities in knee surgery. This list of questions will allow clinicians, researchers, and funders to collaborate in order to deliver high-quality research in knee surgery and further advance the care provided to patients with knee pathology. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):662–668

Escalating health care expenditure worldwide is driving the need for effective resource decision-making, with medical practitioners increasingly making complex resource decisions within the context of patient care. Despite raising serious legal and ethical issues in practice, this has attracted little attention in Australia, or internationally. In particular, it is unknown how orthopaedic surgeons perceive their obligations to the individual patient, and the wider community, when rationing care, and how they reconcile competing obligations. This research explores legal and ethical considerations, and resource allocation by Australian orthopaedic surgeons, as a means of achieving public health cost containment driven by macro-level policy and funding decisions. This research found that Australian orthopaedic surgeon's perceptions, and resource allocation decision making, can be explained by understanding how principles of distributive justice challenge, and shift, the traditional medical paradigm. It found that distributive justice, and challenges of macro level health policy and funding decisions, have given rise to two new medical paradigms. Each which try to balance the best interests of individual patients with demands in respect of the sustainability of the health system, in a situation where resources may be constrained. This research shows that while bedside rationing has positioned the medical profession as the gate keepers of resources, it may have left them straddling an increasingly irreconcilable void between the interests of the individual patient and the wider community, with the sustainability of the health system hanging in the balance

Background. It has become increasingly important to conduct studies assessing clinical outcomes, reoperation rates, and revision rates to better define the indications and efficacy of lumbar spinal procedures and its association with symptomatic adjacent segment degeneration (sASD). Adjacent segment degeneration (ASD) is defined as the radiographic change in the intervertebral discs adjacent to the surgically treated spinal level. SASD represents adjacent segment degeneration which causes pain or numbness due to post-operative spinal instability or nerve compression at the same level. The most common reason for early reoperation and late operation is sASD, therefore is in our best interest to understand the causes of ASD and make steps to limit the occurrence. Method. A comprehensive literature search was performed selecting Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective or prospective studies published up to December 2023. Meta-analysis was performed on 38 studies that met the inclusion criteria and included data of clinical outcomes of patients who had degenerative disc disease, disc herniation, radiculopathy, and spondylolisthesis and underwent lumbar fusion or motion-preservation device surgery; and reported on the prevalence of ASD, sASD, reoperation rate, visual analogue score (VAS), and Oswestry disability index (ODI) improvement. Results. When compared to fusion surgery, a significant reduction of ASD, sASD and reoperation was observed in the cohort of patients that underwent motion-preserving surgery. Conclusion. Dynamic fusion constructs are treatment options that may help to prevent sASD. Conflicts of interest. This research was funded by Paradigm Spine. Sources of funding. Paradigm Spine

Background. Our current research aims to develop technologies to predict spinal loads in vivo using a combination of imaging and modelling methods. To ensure the project's success and inform future applications of the technology, we sought to understand the opinions and perspectives of patients and the public. Methods. A 90-minute public and patient involvement event was developed in collaboration with Exeter Science Centre and held on World Spine Day 2023. The event involved a brief introduction to the project goals followed by an interactive questionnaire to gauge the participants’ background knowledge and interest. The participants then discussed five topics: communication, future directions of the research, concerns about the research protocol, concerns about data, and interest in the project team and research process. A final questionnaire was used to determine their thoughts about the event. Results. Twelve adults attended the event, many motivated by their experience or interest in back pain. A thematic analysis was used to review participant comments on the research project, identifying the need to relate the research to everyday life, present risks in various ways, and be transparent about funding and data sharing. In terms of future applications, participants felt the technology should be used to understand normal spine behaviour, prevent problems, and improve treatment. Participants agreed that they had got something positive out of engaging in the event. Conclusion. Engagement with public and patient stakeholders is an essential activity that can generate vital information to inform and add value to technology development projects. Conflicts of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. EPSRC grants EP/V036602/1 (Meakin, Holsgrove & Javadi) and EP/V032275/1 (Holt & Williams)

Purpose and Background. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) recommend self-management for low back pain (LBP). Our recent narrative review on self-management needs revealed a consensus with respect to the critical components of self-management interventions. With mobile health advancements, apps offer innovative support for LBP management. This study aims to identify current apps for the self-management of LBP, assessing them for their quality, intervention content, theoretical approaches, and risk management approaches. Methods and Results. We identified 69 apps for LBP self-management from a systematic search in the UK iTunes and Google Play stores. The most recommended interventions are muscle stretching (n=51, 73.9%), muscle strengthening (n=42, 60.9%), and core stability exercises (n=32, 46.4%). The average MARS (SD) overall score for the included apps was 2.4 (0.44) out of a possible 5 points, with the engagement and information dimension scoring the lowest at 2.1. In terms of theoretical and risk management approaches, no apps offered a theoretical care model and all failed to specify the age group targeted; only one (1.4%) provided a tailored care approach; 18 (26.1%) included intervention progression; and 11 (15.9%) reported management safety checks. Conclusion. This study shows that app developers generally select interventions endorsed by CPGs. However, the application of a biopsychosocial care model is not being considered. Most of them are of low quality, lacking theoretical approaches to care and consideration of associated risks. It is essential to involve clinicians and patients in developing LBP self-management apps to improve the quality and related approach. Conflicts of interest. None. Sources of funding. No funding obtained. This study has been published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth

Background and study purpose. A recent systematic review with meta-analysis of eight randomised controlled trials concluded that Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) for low back pain might be effective in reducing disability, pain and fear-avoidance beliefs. However, the descriptions of a CFT intervention are not always clear. This study aimed to rate the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups in the systematic review. Methods. Two reviewers independently extracted data from the study articles, protocols and appendices into Microsoft Excel using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. This checklist has 12 items to describe the ‘why’, ‘what’, ‘who’, ‘how’, ‘where’, ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’, ‘modifications’, and ‘how well’ for each intervention. We rated the replicability of the CFT interventions and control groups as ‘reported’, ‘partially reported’ and ‘not reported’ and resolved discrepancies by consensus. Results. No studies reported 100% of the TIDieR items; the mean ‘reported’ rating was 54% (range 33–67%) for the CFT interventions and 35% (range 8–67%) for controls. The six most replicable items were the same for both CFT and control groups. These were ‘brief name’ (CFT=100%; control=100%), ‘why’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘how’ (CFT=100%; control=50%), ‘what procedures’ (CFT=88%; control=63%), ‘where’ (CFT=88%; control=75%) and ‘planned adherence’ (CFT=75%; control=38%). Items that were not sufficiently ‘reported’ for either CFT or control groups included ‘when and how much’, ‘tailoring’ and ‘adherence’. Conclusion. Incomplete descriptions of CFT interventions mean that clinicians and patients cannot implement those that have demonstrated effectiveness, and poor descriptions of control groups prevent researchers from replicating them in future studies. Conflict of interest. No conflicts of interest. Sources of funding. No funding obtained