Published
A trial can report a clean effect and still be impossible to repeat, because readers cannot tell what was actually delivered. The TIDieR checklist (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) closes that gap by asking authors to state 12 things about an intervention, from its name to how closely delivery matched the plan. Hoffmann and colleagues published it in the BMJ in 2014 as an extension of CONSORT 2010 item 5 and SPIRIT 2013 item 11 [1]. Below, the TIDieR checklist is applied item by item to a real open-access intervention paper, the SCI-MT description of intensive motor training after spinal cord injury [2], with an exact section pointer and an honest verdict for every row. CONSORT 2025 (30 items) replaced CONSORT 2010 and now asks for intervention detail in its own item 13 [3], so the worked table also shows where TIDieR content lands in the updated guidelines.
In Simple Words
TIDieR is a 12-question form for describing an intervention so that someone else can run it again. It asks what the intervention was called, why it was used, which materials and steps it involved, who delivered it, how, where, when and how much, what was tailored, what changed along the way, and how closely delivery matched the plan. A trial report that answers all 12 can be repeated. One that skips them leaves readers guessing.
What the TIDieR checklist is and why it exists
The TIDieR checklist came out of a literature review of existing checklists, a Delphi survey of an international expert panel that guided item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting [1]. The result is a 12-item list covering brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who provided, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned) and how well (actual). Its emphasis is on trials, yet the authors intended the guidance to apply across all evaluative study designs [1].
The need is measurable. Hoffmann and colleagues assessed 60 systematic reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions (30 Cochrane and 30 non-Cochrane), rating the intervention description in each of 568 included trials against TIDieR with two independent raters. The weakest items were modifications, fidelity, materials, procedure and tailoring, each missing from every trial intervention in 97%, 90%, 88%, 83% and 83% of reviews respectively. Even ‘when and how much’, one of the better-reported items, was adequate for all trials in only 31% of reviews [4]. Among the 33 review authors who answered the survey, 58% said they held further intervention information that never reached the publication [4].
For authors, the practical consequence is a drafting rule used in Editverse manuscript work. Build the TIDieR table before writing the Methods paragraph, then compress the table into prose and keep the table, or a supplementary version of it, for readers who need to replicate. The paragraph then cannot silently drop an item, because the empty cell is visible. The same table feeds the replicable methodology section and the intervention rows of a CONSORT 2025 trial report.
The 12 TIDieR checklist items in plain language
The table paraphrases each item and adds the reporting trap that most often empties the cell. Items 10 to 12 apply only where the intervention was modified or where adherence was assessed, which is why they are the items most easily left out.
| # | Item | What the report must state | Trap to avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brief name | A name or phrase that identifies the intervention. | Using the trial acronym where the intervention itself needs a label. |
| 2 | Why | The rationale, theory or goal behind the essential elements. | Citing background on the disease instead of the reason this intervention should work. |
| 3 | What (materials) | Physical or informational materials used for delivery or training, and where to obtain them. | Mentioning a manual without saying where readers can access it. |
| 4 | What (procedures) | Each procedure, activity or process, including enabling and support activities. | Describing the goal (“exercise”) rather than the steps. |
| 5 | Who provided | The expertise, background and training of each provider. | Writing “trained staff” without saying trained in what, by whom, for how long. |
| 6 | How | The mode of delivery (face to face, internet, telephone) and whether individual or group. | Leaving mode implied by the setting. |
| 7 | Where | The type of location and any infrastructure or features that matter. | Naming the country but not the kind of site. |
| 8 | When and how much | Number of sessions, schedule, duration, intensity and dose. | A range of sessions and durations that cannot add up to the stated dose. |
| 9 | Tailoring | If the intervention was personalised, titrated or adapted, what was changed, why, when and how. | Saying “individualised” with no decision rule. |
| 10 | Modifications | If the intervention changed during the study, what, why, when and how. | Silence, which readers cannot tell apart from “no changes”. |
| 11 | How well (planned) | If adherence or fidelity was assessed, how and by whom, and any strategies used to maintain it. | Naming a process evaluation without saying what counts as adherent. |
| 12 | How well (actual) | If adherence or fidelity was assessed, the extent to which delivery matched the plan. | Reporting only the number randomised, not the dose received. |
Where the TIDieR checklist sits in CONSORT 2025 and SPIRIT 2025
Both 2025 updates absorbed TIDieR content instead of leaving it as a separate add-on. The CONSORT 2025 development team drew on TIDieR, alongside the Harms, Outcomes and Non-pharmacological Treatment extensions, when it rebuilt the checklist, and it added a new item on how the intervention and comparator were actually administered [3]. SPIRIT 2025 revised its item 15a to call for additional intervention and comparator detail, with TIDieR named as a source [5]. The sibling guides on CONSORT 2025 and the SPIRIT protocol checklist cover the full item lists, and the CONSORT-AI guide covers trials whose intervention is an algorithm.
The mapping below pairs each TIDieR item with the closest 2025 item. The pairing is an Editverse reading of the published item wording, not an official crosswalk, so rows 10 and 11 are marked as judgement calls.
| TIDieR items | CONSORT 2025 (reports) | SPIRIT 2025 (protocols) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 to 9 (name through tailoring) | Item 13, intervention and comparator with enough detail to allow replication, plus where extra materials such as a manual can be accessed | Item 15a, the same, adding how, when and by whom they will be administered |
| 5 (who provided), eligibility side | Item 12b, eligibility criteria for sites and for individuals delivering the intervention | Item 14b |
| 10 (modifications) Judgement call | Item 10, which now covers important changes after the trial began | Item 15b, criteria for discontinuing or modifying the allocated intervention |
| 11 (how well, planned) Judgement call | Item 13 where fidelity strategies are part of the intervention description | Item 15c, strategies to improve adherence |
| 12 (how well, actual) | Item 24a, intervention and comparator as actually administered, including who delivered them, adherence and fidelity | Not applicable, because a protocol precedes delivery |
A worked example of the TIDieR checklist on the SCI-MT intervention paper
The example is Ben and colleagues, “Early and intensive Motor Training for people with spinal cord injuries (the SCI-MT Trial): description of the intervention”, published in Spinal Cord in 2023 [2]. It is open access under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence, stated in the article’s own licence paragraph and in the Crossref version-of-record record, and its authors built Table 1 around the TIDieR checklist, so every verdict below can be checked against the text. The paper is available on PubMed Central (PMID 37468607).
The intervention, called Motor Training, combines task-specific training with strength training and is added to usual care for 10 weeks. The trial is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial planned for 220 participants across 15 sites in 7 countries in Europe and Australia, with neurological recovery on the Total Motor Score as the primary outcome. At the time of writing, 120 participants had been randomised [2].
Two scope points shape the audit. The abstract says the text addresses six TIDieR criteria in depth (why, what, how, where, when and how much), while Table 1 extends to further rows. And because the paper describes the intervention before results are reported, items 10 and 12 cannot be fully assessed. They are marked “Not yet reportable” instead of “missing”, which would be an unfair label.
The method was simple. Table 1 was read row by row, then the body text was searched for the detail each row summarises. Every row below cites the section it comes from, rows that depend on interpretation carry a Judgement call tag, and every quotation (25 words or fewer) was checked against the full text.
Item by item TIDieR checklist audit of the SCI-MT paper
| # | Item | Where in the paper | What the paper states | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Brief name | Table 1, row “Brief Name”; Introduction, paragraph 1 | Table 1 gives the trial title. The Introduction defines “Motor Training” as the umbrella term for task-specific training plus strength training. | Reported |
| 2 | Why | Table 1, row “Why”; Part 1, subsections on task-specific and strength training | Rationale rests on animal and stroke evidence and on the absence of a clinical trial in recent injury. The authors are open that for very weak muscles “The evidence about the effectiveness of this form of strength training for the very weak is inconclusive”. | Reported |
| 3 | What (materials) | Table 1, row “What materials”; Part 2, paragraphs 1 and 2; Fig. 1; supplementary Intervention Manual | A 2-hour online training package, an Intervention Manual with exercise examples and four completed hypothetical Practice Sheets, and a Practice Sheet example (Fig. 1). The manual is supplied as supplementary information, so access is stated. | Reported |
| 4 | What (procedures) | Table 1, row “What procedures”; Introduction, paragraph 1; Part 1; Table 2 | Principles are given per component (repetition, active practice, progression, feedback, goals, and strength rules by muscle grade). Exercise choice is left to therapists, because there is “no one specific set of Motor Training exercises that can cater for all people with SCI”. Judgement call The description is principle-level rather than exercise-level, which suits a pragmatic design that the authors defend in the Discussion. | Reported |
| 5 | Who provided | Table 1, row “Who provided”; Part 2, paragraph 3; Discussion, paragraph 2 | Physiotherapists, occupational therapists or exercise physiologists “appropriately qualified to deliver all or some aspects of Motor Training once they have completed the compulsory training”. Years of experience are not given, and the Discussion notes “There are many assumed skills that underpin the intervention”. Judgement call Profession and training are stated, but a replicator would still need to decide what “appropriately qualified” means. | Partly reported |
| 6 | How | Table 1, row “How and Where”; Part 2, paragraph 3 | Delivered one to one by the therapist. Face-to-face delivery is implied by the therapy gym setting rather than stated in those words. Therapist training, by contrast, is delivered online. | Reported |
| 7 | Where | Table 1, row “How and Where”; Introduction, paragraph 2 | A therapy gym, with any equipment the therapist judges appropriate (robotics, body-weight-support treadmill and electrical stimulation are allowed if the key principles hold), across 15 sites in 7 countries. | Reported |
| 8 | When and how much | Table 1, row “When and How much”; Part 1, paragraph 3; Part 2, paragraph 5; Introduction, paragraph 2 | 12 hours per week for 10 weeks on top of usual care (120 hours planned, a figure derived here by multiplication), in people within 10 weeks of injury. Intensity is “as hard as possible”, and active-practice time is recorded, though “Time alone will not capture all aspects of intensity or dosage”. The schedule line reads “typically the 12 h per week will be provided over 5 to 10 sessions of 1 to 2 h duration each”. Judgement call At the low end, 5 sessions of at most 2 hours give at most 10 hours, so 12 hours needs at least 6 sessions at the 2-hour maximum. The word “typically” may cover this, but the stated range does not reproduce the dose at its extremes. | Reported |
| 9 | Tailoring | Table 1, row “Tailoring”; Part 1, subsection “Goal driven”; Table 2 | Individualised to impairments, abilities and goals. Two 10-week and two six-month goals are set at baseline, and up to four weekly goals drive exercise choice. Strength training follows an explicit rule by muscle grade (low load and high repetitions for grades 1 and 2, progressive resistance training for grades 3 and 4). | Reported |
| 10 | Modifications | Discussion, paragraph 3 | No modification is described. The authors state “Deviations from study protocol will all be closely recorded and monitored.” Judgement call With 120 participants already randomised, the article does not say whether any change occurred, so silence cannot be read as “none”. | Not yet reportable |
| 11 | How well (planned) | Table 1, row “How well”; Part 2, paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 | Compulsory therapist training, the manual, Practice Sheets reviewed each session, case report forms based on the International Spinal Cord Injury Physical Therapy-Occupational Therapy Basic Data Set, ongoing audit of Practice Sheets by three trial clinical experts, and a process evaluation alongside the trial. Judgement call A threshold for what counts as adherent to the key principles is not stated. | Reported |
| 12 | How well (actual) | Not applicable to this paper | Delivered dose and fidelity can only be reported after follow-up, in the trial results paper, where CONSORT 2025 item 24a applies. | Not yet reportable |
Tally. Nine of the 12 rows are Reported (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11), one is Partly reported (item 5), and two are Not yet reportable (items 10 and 12). Five rows carry a Judgement call tag (items 4, 5, 8, 10 and 11). Green marks Reported, amber marks Partly reported, and grey-blue marks Not yet reportable.
The audit does not say the paper is weak. A pre-results intervention paper that reports nine of 12 items, supplies its manual and flags the limits of its own evidence is a strong model. The tagged rows show where even a careful report leaves a replicator with a decision to make.
What the audit teaches about writing a TIDieR table
Check the dose arithmetic before submission
Dose is the cell where a quiet inconsistency does the most damage, because readers use it to judge feasibility. A simple check works for any schedule. Weekly dose equals sessions per week multiplied by minutes per session, and both ends of every stated range should reproduce the target. For a 12-hour week with a 2-hour session cap, the minimum is 12 divided by 2, which is 6 sessions. Writing “6 to 10 sessions of 1.2 to 2 h” or stating a longer maximum session would remove the gap in the SCI-MT row. The same check applies to drug trials, where dose, frequency and duration must multiply to the cumulative exposure.
State tailoring as decision rules
The best row in the SCI-MT table is tailoring. The paper does not stop at “individualised”. It names the trigger (muscle grade 1 and 2 versus 3 and 4), the rule (low load and high repetitions versus progressive resistance training) and the goal cycle (baseline goals, then up to four weekly goals). A reader can reproduce that logic without guessing, which is exactly what TIDieR item 9 asks for.
Put materials where readers can open them
CONSORT 2025 item 13 asks where additional materials, such as an intervention manual, can be accessed [3]. SCI-MT answers with a supplementary manual and a printed Practice Sheet example. A manual that exists but cannot be found does nothing for replication.
Keep planned and delivered fidelity apart
Items 11 and 12 describe two different things. The first is the plan, which includes training, audit and process evaluation. The second is the result, which includes the dose actually received and the share of sessions that met the principles. A protocol or pre-results paper can complete item 11 only, and a results paper must complete item 12, because bias assessment also depends on it. Tools such as RoB 2 ask about deviations from the intended intervention, and analysis choices such as intention-to-treat versus per-protocol only make sense when the delivered dose is reported.
Pre-specify what counts as adherent
Saying that fidelity will be examined in a process evaluation is a plan to look, not a standard to meet. A threshold, even a provisional one, turns item 11 into something a reader can later compare with item 12. For small studies, the same logic applies to a pilot study, where feasibility of delivering the intervention as planned is often the main question.
Which TIDieR checklist extension fits your study
The original 12 items have been extended for particular settings. The TIDieR-Rehab checklist, published in BMJ Open in 2024, contains seven original, three adapted and 12 new items, adding the intended population, timing, planned dosage (how much, how challenging, regression and progression), personalisation and harms [7]. A rehabilitation trial such as SCI-MT, which appeared a year earlier, is a natural candidate for a second pass with that extension. TIDieR-telehealth adds considerations for remotely delivered interventions [8], and TIDieR-C (Child and Adolescent Health) adds 13 pediatric considerations covering age-appropriate materials, acceptability adjustments and how pediatric dosing was set [9].
Outside trials, Cotterill and colleagues used TIDieR in six applied health research projects and found it useful, while proposing four additions. These were a “voice” item recording who prepared the description, a “stage of implementation” item, a modification column for every item, and an extended “how well” item for contextual factors [6]. Teams planning service-level change can read this alongside the guide to implementation science in healthcare.
TIDieR checklist mistakes to avoid
- Describing only the experimental arm. CONSORT 2025 item 13 asks for the intervention and the comparator with enough detail to allow replication, so “usual care” needs its own description [3].
- Mixing the plan with what happened. Planned dose belongs in Methods and delivered dose belongs in Results.
- Burying the dose in prose. A reader hunting for sessions, minutes and weeks should find them in one cell.
- Citing a manual that cannot be opened. Give a repository, a supplement or a stated route to request it.
- Claiming fidelity without a method. Say who assessed it, with what instrument or record, and against what standard.
- Leaving modifications blank. State “no modifications occurred” when that is true, so the reader does not have to infer it.
A TIDieR checklist table template
Copy the structure below into the Methods or a supplement, and add a “planned” or “actual” tag where both exist. The prompts are Editverse paraphrases of the TIDieR items.
| Item | Your entry | Prompt |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Brief name | [label] | Would a reader search for this name? |
| 2 Why | [rationale] | Which element is essential, and why? |
| 3 Materials | [items and access route] | Can a stranger open the manual? |
| 4 Procedures | [steps, in order] | Are support activities included? |
| 5 Who provided | [profession, training, experience] | What would a replicator need to hire? |
| 6 How | [mode, individual or group] | Is the mode stated, not implied? |
| 7 Where | [site type, equipment] | What infrastructure is assumed? |
| 8 When and how much | [sessions x minutes x weeks] | Does the range reproduce the total? |
| 9 Tailoring | [trigger, rule, limit] | Is there a decision rule? |
| 10 Modifications | [change, reason, date, or “none”] | Is “none” written down? |
| 11 How well (planned) | [method, assessor, threshold] | What counts as adherent? |
| 12 How well (actual) | [dose received, fidelity result] | Is it in Results, not Methods? |
Free tools for drafting the table, charts and flow diagram
Once the table is drafted, three free Editverse tools cover the next steps in a trial report. They sit alongside the TIDieR table in the same Methods and Results workflow.
Free Research Tools from Editverse
- GraphPro. Build publication-ready charts, 25 types, with built-in t-test, ANOVA, correlation, and chi-square p-values. Free, no signup.
- StatPro. Free statistical calculators and a test-selector tool covering group comparisons, categorical outcomes, time-to-event analysis, and diagnostic accuracy.
- Flowchart Pro. Generate PRISMA 2020, PRISMA-ScR, CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, MOOSE, and ARRIVE flow diagrams directly in your browser.
Professional editing support for intervention reporting
An intervention paragraph is where trial manuscripts are most often compressed past the point of replication. Substantive editing restructures that paragraph so the dose, the provider and the delivery mode are easy to find, and technical editing checks that the methodology, results and discussion tell the same story. Both packages below are flat fees with no per-word charges.
Advanced
$550
Substantive editing, scientific language polishing, APA, AMA or Vancouver style editing and reference list verification. 7 to 10 business days, one free revision round.
Premium
$750
Full technical editing of methodology, results and discussion logic, figures and tables editing, and re-submission support. 10 to 14 business days, revision rounds within 90 days.
Editverse editors improve the writing and check the work, and they do not change data or results. Support aligns with COPE, ICMJE and GPP 2022, with institutional and country-specific ethics followed. The full range is on the manuscript editing services page.
TIDieR checklist questions
Is the TIDieR checklist mandatory for journal submission?
TIDieR is a reporting guideline, not a regulation, so the requirement depends on the journal’s author instructions. Because CONSORT 2025 and SPIRIT 2025 now carry intervention-detail items that draw on TIDieR [3], a trial that follows them already needs most of the content.
Does the TIDieR checklist apply to drug trials?
Yes. The authors intended it to apply across all evaluative study designs [1]. For a drug, materials and procedures translate into formulation, route and administration steps, and “how much” becomes dose, frequency and duration.
How long should a TIDieR table be?
The checklist sets no length. The SCI-MT paper uses a nine-row Table 1 and points to a supplementary manual for detail [2]. A short table plus an accessible manual is a defensible pattern when journals cap Methods length.
What is the difference between TIDieR and CONSORT?
CONSORT is the reporting guideline for the whole randomised trial report, while TIDieR drills into one element, the intervention. TIDieR was built as an extension of CONSORT 2010 item 5 [1], and CONSORT 2025 has since absorbed intervention-detail content into items 13 and 24a [3]. Students writing a thesis chapter can see how the two fit in the guide to dissertation reporting guidelines.
Conclusion
The TIDieR checklist works best as a drafting tool, not an afterthought. Building the 12-row table first exposes the cells that prose hides, and the SCI-MT audit shows what a strong table looks like and where even a careful team leaves a decision for the replicator. Check the dose arithmetic, write tailoring as rules, link the manual, keep planned and delivered fidelity apart, and say plainly when no modification occurred. Those habits align an intervention description with CONSORT 2025 item 13, SPIRIT 2025 item 15a and the replication aim that TIDieR was written to serve.
References
- Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687. doi:10.1136/bmj.g1687. PMID 24609605.
- Ben M, Glinsky JV, Chu J, Spooren AI, Roberts S, Chen LW, et al. Early and intensive Motor Training for people with spinal cord injuries (the SCI-MT Trial): description of the intervention. Spinal Cord. 2023;61(11):600-7. doi:10.1038/s41393-023-00911-4. PMID 37468607. PMCID PMC10645584. Licensed CC BY 4.0.
- Hopewell S, Chan AW, Collins GS, Hrobjartsson A, Moher D, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2025 statement: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ. 2025;389:e081123. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081123. PMID 40228833.
- Hoffmann TC, Walker MF, Langhorne P, Eames S, Thomas E, Glasziou P. What’s in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. BMJ Open. 2015;5(11):e009051. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009051. PMID 26576811.
- Chan AW, Boutron I, Hopewell S, Moher D, Schulz KF, Collins GS, et al. SPIRIT 2025 statement: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials. BMJ. 2025;389:e081477. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081477. PMID 40294953.
- Cotterill S, Knowles S, Martindale AM, Elvey R, Howard S, Coupe N, et al. Getting messier with TIDieR: embracing context and complexity in intervention reporting. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18:12. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0461-y. PMID 29347910.
- Signal N, Gomes E, Olsen S, Alder G. Enhancing the reporting quality of rehabilitation interventions through an extension of the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR): the TIDieR-Rehab checklist and supplementary manual. BMJ Open. 2024;14(11):e084320. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084320. PMID 39608992.
- Rhon DI, Fritz JM, Kerns RD, McGeary DD, Coleman BC, Farrokhi S, et al. TIDieR-telehealth: precision in reporting of telehealth interventions used in clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22:161. doi:10.1186/s12874-022-01640-7. PMID 35655144.
- Goren K, Lai VKW, Baba A, Smith M, Allegaert K, Butcher NJ, et al. Transparent reporting of pediatric clinical trial interventions: TIDieR-Children and Adolescents. Pediatrics. 2025;156(5):e2025072867. doi:10.1542/peds.2025-072867. PMID 41087014.