The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals.

Background: Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). Methods: This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs). Results: In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature. Conclusion: Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]