The in-between world of knowledge brokering

material.The written description of the interventions had 715 words.Our diagram (fig 3) shows immediately the cumulative nature of the experimental interventions.Although each intervention is complex, the comparison between successive interventions is relatively simple, each differing from the last by a single component.The year long interval between the control intervention and trial outcome also stands out, in contrast to the six month interval in the experimental arms. Advantages of using graphsGraphical depiction of an entire intervention allows its structure to be quickly understood.With the experimental and control interventions placed side by side on the diagram, differences between them-such as in the time elapsing between their delivery and the trial outcome-become obvious.We believe that the discipline of constructing a diagram will help at the design stage of a trial.By focusing attention on the components of the intervention, it prompts researchers to think through the structure, timing, and contents of each component in detail and to describe the components adequately.The exercise should help to ensure that the control intervention has been adequately considered and described and that the difference between the experimental arm and the control arm is appropriate for measuring the effect of the intervention.For the reader of the trial a graph will allow the details of an intervention to be quickly and easily grasped.Aspects that may be missed in a long verbal description stand out clearly, thus the differences between experimental and control interventions become obvious.The CONSORT trial flowchart has improved transparency and accurate reporting of the num-bers of participants at different stages of a study.We suggest that our proposed graphical method would similarly increase the clarity of reporting of complex intervention trials.We thank Paul Glasziou for helpful comments.