Search

Background: A plain-language summary is a short and clearly stated version of a study's results using non-scientific vocabulary that provide many advantages for patients and clinicians in the process of shared decision-making., Objectives: The primary objective was to investigate the extent to which published reports of physiotherapy interventions provide plain-language summaries. We investigate as the secondary objectives if the available plain-language summaries are at a suitable reading level for a lay person and if inclusion of plain-language summaries in these reports is increasing over time and is associated with trial quality (i.e. PEDro score)., Data Sources: All 4421 randomised controlled trials (RCT), systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines that included plain-language summaries indexed on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) were included., Main Outcome Measures: Proportion of published reports with plain-language summaries, Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)., Results: The number of published reports with a plain-language summary doubled in the last 6 years. From a total of 34,444 reports indexed on PEDro, only 4421 reports had English plain-language summaries. RCTs with plain-language summaries had higher PEDro scores than RCTs without plain-language summaries (mean difference=0.8 points, 95%CI 0.7 to 0.8). Only 2% of reports were considered at a suitable reading level by the FKGL formula and 0.1% by the FRES formula., Conclusions: Although the publication of plain-language summaries is increasing over time, the current number corresponds to only 13% of all published reports. In addition the majority of plain-language summaries are written at an advanced reading level., (Copyright © 2018 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: While the number of reports of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy has increased substantially in the last decades, the quality and reporting of randomized trials have never been systematically investigated in the subdiscipline of cardiothoracic physical therapy. The primary aim was to determine the methodological quality and completeness of reporting of cardiothoracic physical therapy trials. Secondary aims were to investigate the range of clinical conditions investigated in these trials and the degree of association between trial characteristics and quality., Methods: All reports of randomized trials indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and coded as being relevant to cardiothoracic physical therapy were surveyed. PEDro scale individual items and total score were downloaded, and some characteristics included in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement were extracted for each trial report., Results: The mean ± SD total PEDro score for the 2,970 included reports of cardiothoracic trials was 4.7 ± 1.4, with 27% being of moderate to high quality. The clinical conditions studied included chronic lung diseases (32% of the trials), cardiac diseases (20%), cardiovascular surgical conditions (5%), sleep disorders (5%), peripheral vascular disease (4%), acute lung disease (4%), critical illness (3%), and other surgical conditions (3%). The multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that endorsement of the CONSORT statement by the publishing journal, time since publication, evidence of trial registration, sources of funding, description of the sample size calculation, and identification of the primary outcome(s) had associations with the total PEDro score., Conclusions: There is great potential to improve the quality of the conduct and reporting of trials evaluating the effects of cardiothoracic physical therapy.

Background: Clinical trial registration has several putative benefits: prevention of selective reporting, avoidance of duplication, encouragement of participation, and facilitation of reviews. Previous surveys suggest that most trials are registered. However, these surveys examined only trials in journals with high impact factors, which may bias the results., Purpose: This study examined the completeness of clinical trial registration and the extent of selective reporting of outcomes in a random sample of published randomized trials in physical therapy., Data Sources: This was a retrospective cohort study in which 200 randomized trials of physical therapy interventions were randomly selected from those published in 2009 and indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), regardless of the publishing journal., Data Extraction: Evidence of registration was sought for each trial in the study, on clinical trial registers, and by contacting authors., Data Synthesis: The proportion of randomized trials that were registered was 67/200 (34%). This proportion was significantly lower than among the trials in journals with high impact factors, where the proportion was 75% (odds ratio=7.4, 95% confidence interval=2.6-21.4). Unambiguous primary outcomes (ie, method and time points of measurement clearly defined in the trial registry entry) were registered for 32 trials, and registration was adequate (ie, prospective with unambiguous primary outcomes) for 5/200 (2.5%) trials. Selective outcome reporting occurred in 23 (47%) of the 49 trials in which selective reporting was assessable., Limitations: The inclusion of only English-language trials prevents generalization of the results to non-English-language trials., Conclusions: Registration of randomized trials of physical therapy interventions is rarely adequate. Consequently, the putative benefits of registration are not being fully realized.

Objective: To describe the change with time of the reported methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions., Study Design and Setting: For all trials of physiotherapy interventions indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), year of publication, and methodological quality scores (11-item PEDro scale and total PEDro score [range, 0-10]) were extracted. The relationship between trial quality and time was evaluated using regression analyses for the PEDro total score and individual quality items. The study was carried out in a university research center., Results: Data from 10,025 trials published since 1960 were analyzed. The total PEDro score was related to time (year of publication), with the total score increasing by an average of ∼0.6 points each decade between 1960 and 2009. The reported use of eight of the 11 individual items from the PEDro scale (intention-to-treat analysis, concealed allocation, groups similar at baseline, reporting of results of between-group statistical comparisons, point measures and measures of variability reported, subjects randomly allocated to groups, eligibility criteria specified, and blinding of assessors) also improved with time., Conclusion: The reported methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions has improved over time. Further improvement is still necessary., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many bibliographic databases index research studies evaluating the effects of health care interventions. One study has concluded that the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has the most complete indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions, but the design of that study may have exaggerated estimates of the completeness of indexing by PEDro., Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the completeness of indexing of reports of randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions by 8 bibliographic databases., Design: This study was an audit of bibliographic databases., Methods: Prespecified criteria were used to identify 400 reports of randomized controlled trials from the reference lists of systematic reviews published in 2008 that evaluated physical therapy interventions. Eight databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO, and PubMed) were searched for each trial report. The proportion of the 400 trial reports indexed by each database was calculated., Results: The proportions of the 400 trial reports indexed by the databases were as follows: CENTRAL, 95%; PEDro, 92%; PubMed, 89%; EMBASE, 88%; CINAHL, 53%; AMED, 50%; Hooked on Evidence, 45%; and PsycINFO, 6%. Almost all of the trial reports (99%) were found in at least 1 database, and 88% were indexed by 4 or more databases. Four trial reports were uniquely indexed by a single database only (2 in CENTRAL and 1 each in PEDro and PubMed)., Limitations: The results are only applicable to searching for English-language published reports of randomized controlled trials evaluating physical therapy interventions., Conclusions: The 4 most comprehensive databases of trial reports evaluating physical therapy interventions were CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE. Clinicians seeking quick answers to clinical questions could search any of these databases knowing that all are reasonably comprehensive. PEDro, unlike the other 3 most complete databases, is specific to physical therapy, so studies not relevant to physical therapy are less likely to be retrieved. Researchers could use CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE in combination to conduct exhaustive searches for randomized trials in physical therapy.

Objective: To evaluate the convergent and construct validity of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale used to rate the methodological quality of randomized trials in physiotherapy., Study Design and Setting: PEDro total scores and individual-item scores were extracted from 9,456 physiotherapy trials indexed on PEDro. Convergent validity was tested by comparing PEDro total scores with three other quality scales. Construct validity was tested by regressing the PEDro score and individual-item scores with the Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge impact factors (IF) and SCImago journal rankings (SJR) for the journals in which the trials were published., Results: Testing of convergent validity revealed correlations with the other quality scales ranging from 0.31 to 0.69. The PEDro total score was weakly but significantly associated with IF and SJR (P < 0.0001). Eight of the 10 individual scale items that contribute to the PEDro total score were significantly associated with IF., Conclusion: This study provides preliminary evidence of the convergent and construct validity of the PEDro total score and the construct validity of eight individual scale items., (Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the comprehensiveness of indexing the reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions by eight bibliographic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed)., Design: Audit of bibliographic databases., Methods: Two hundred and eighty-one reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions were identified by screening the reference lists of 30 relevant systematic reviews published in four consecutive issues of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 3, 2007 to Issue 2, 2008). AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed were used to search for the trial reports. The number of trial reports indexed in each database was calculated., Results: PEDro indexed 99% of the trial reports, CENTRAL indexed 98%, PubMed indexed 91%, EMBASE indexed 82%, CINAHL indexed 61%, Hooked on Evidence indexed 40%, AMED indexed 36% and PsycINFO indexed 17%. Most trial reports (92%) were indexed on four or more of the databases. One trial report was indexed on a single database (PEDro)., Conclusions: Of the eight bibliographic databases examined, PEDro and CENTRAL provide the most comprehensive indexing of reports of randomised trials of physiotherapy interventions.