The Quality of Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials Varies between Subdisciplines of Physiotherapy
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT
Purpose: The quality of reports of randomized trials of physiotherapy interventions varies by year of publication, language of publication and whether the intervention being assessed is a type of electrotherapy. Whether it also varies by subdiscipline of physiotherapy has not yet been systematically investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the quality of trial reports varies according to the subdiscipline of physiotherapy being evaluated. Methods: Reports of physiotherapy trials were identified using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Quality of the trial report was evaluated using the PEDro scale (total PEDro score and 11 individual PEDro scale items). Multiple linear and logistic regressions were used to predict the quality of trial reports, with subdisciplines, time since publication, language of publication, and evaluation of electrotherapy as independent variables in the model. Results: Total PEDro scores are higher when trial reports are more recent; are published in English; investigate electrotherapy; and are in the subdisciplines of musculoskeletal, neurology, cardiopulmonary, gerontology, continence and women's health, orthopaedics, or paediatrics. Trials in the subdisciplines of ergonomics and occupational health, oncology, and sports are associated with lower total PEDro scores. The musculoskeletal subdiscipline had a positive association with six of the PEDro scale items, more than any other subdiscipline. Conclusions: There is scope to improve the quality of the conduct and reporting of randomized trials across all the physiotherapy subdisciplines. This study provides specific information about how each physiotherapy subdiscipline can improve trial quality.
RÉSUMÉ
Objectif: La qualité des rapports sur les essais randomisés portant sur des interventions en physiothérapie varie selon l'année de publication, la langue de publication et la question de savoir si l'intervention évaluée constitue un type d'électrothérapie. On n'a pas encore cherché systématiquement à déterminer si la qualité varie aussi en fonction de la sous-discipline de la physiothérapie. Cette étude visait à déterminer si la qualité des rapports portant sur les essais varie en fonction de la sous-discipline de la physiothérapie évaluée. Méthodes: On a trouvé des rapports portant sur des essais en physiothérapie en utilisant la base de données factuelles sur la physiothérapie (PEDro). On a évalué la qualité du rapport sur l'essai en fonction de l'échelle PEDro (résultat PEDro total et 11 questions individuelles). De multiples régressions linéaires et logistiques ont servi à prédire la qualité des rapports sur les essais et les sous-disciplines, le temps écoulé depuis la publication, la langue de la publication et l'évaluation de l'électrothérapie ont servi de variables indépendantes dans le modèle. Résultats: Les résultats PEDro globaux sont plus élevés lorsque les rapports sur les essais sont plus récents; lorsqu'ils sont publiés en anglais, lorsqu'ils portent sur l'électrothérapie et les sous-disciplines suivantes: musculosquelettique, neurologie, cardiopulmonaire, gérontologie, continence et santé des femmes, orthopédie ou pédiatrie. On établit un lien entre les essais dans les sous-disciplines ergonomie et santé au travail, oncologie et sports et des résultats PEDro globaux moins élevés. Il y a un lien positif entre la sous-discipline musculosquelettique et six des questions de l'évaluation PEDro, plus que dans toute autre sous-discipline. Conclusion: Il est possible d'améliorer la qualité de l'exécution d'essais randomisés et des rapports à leur sujet dans toutes les sous-disciplines de la physiothérapie. Cette étude présente de l'information précise sur la façon dont chaque sous-discipline de la physiothérapie peut améliorer la qualité des essais.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
1.
Herbert, R, Jamtvedt, G, Hagen, KB, et al. (2011).Practical evidence-based physiotherapy., 2nd ed.London:Churchill Livingstone
2.
(2011). Levels of Evidence.OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group [Internet].cited 2012 Dec 18The Oxford:Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based MedicineAvailable from: http://www.cebm.net/mod_product/design/files/CEBM-Levels-of-Evidence-2.1.pdf
3.
Centre for Evidence-Based PhysiotherapyPhysiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). [Internet]., cited 2012 Dec 18[updated 2012 Dec 3]. Available from: http://www.pedro.org.au/
4.
Maher, CG, Moseley, AM, Sherrington, C, et al. (2008).A description of the trials, reviews, and practice guidelines indexed in the PEDro database.Phys Ther.88,9,1068-, 77https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080002. Medline:18635670
5.
Moseley, AM, Herbert, RD, Maher, CG, et al. (2011).Reported quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions has improved over time.J Clin Epidemiol.64,6,594-, 601https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.009. Medline:21144705
6.
Shiwa, SR, Moseley, AM, Maher, CG, et al. (2013).Language of publication has a small influence on the quality of reports of controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions.J Clin Epidemiol.66,1,78-, 84https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.004. Medline:23177897
7.
Maher, CG, Sherrington, C, Herbert, RD, et al. (2003).Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials.Phys Ther.83,8,713-, 21Medline:12882612
8.
Moseley, A, Sherrington, C, Herbert, R, et al. (2000).The extent and quality of evidence in neurological physiotherapy: an analysis of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).Brain Impair.1,02,130-, 40https://doi.org/10.1375/brim.1.2.130
9.
Sherrington, C, Moseley, AM, Herbert, RD, et al. (2010).Ten years of evidence to guide physiotherapy interventions: Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).Br J Sports Med.44,12,836-, 7https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2009.066357. Medline:19846426
10.
Moseley, AM, Sherrington, C, Elkins, MR, et al. (2009).Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, hooked on evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed.Physiotherapy.95,3,151-, 6https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006. Medline:19635333
11.
Michaleff, ZA, Costa, LO, Moseley, AM, et al. (2011).CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions.Phys Ther.91,2,190-, 7https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20100116. Medline:21148259
12.
de Morton, NA (2009).The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study.Aust J Physiother.55,2,129-, 33https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-9514(09)70043-1. Medline:19463084
13.
Macedo, LG, Elkins, MR, Maher, CG, et al. (2010).There was evidence of convergent and construct validity of Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality scale for physiotherapy trials.J Clin Epidemiol.63,8,920-, 5https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.005. Medline:20171839
14.
Maher, CG, Sherrington, C, Elkins, M, et al. (2004).Challenges for evidence-based physical therapy: accessing and interpreting high-quality evidence on therapy.Phys Ther.84,7,644-, 54Medline:15225083
15.
Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Grimes, DA, et al. (1994).Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals.JAMA.272,2,125-, 8https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03520020051014. Medline:8015122
16.
Lee, YJ, Ellenberg, JH, Hirtz, DG, et al. (1991).Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option?.Stat Med.10,10,1595-, 605https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780101011. Medline:1947515
17.
Minns Lowe, CJ, Wilson, MS, Sackley, CM, et al. (2011).Blind outcome assessment: the development and use of procedures to maintain and describe blinding in a pragmatic physiotherapy rehabilitation trial.Clin Rehabil.25,3,264-, 74https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215510380824. Medline:20971749
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Physiotherapy Canada
Volume 66 • Number 1 • Winter 2014
Pages: 36 - 43
Copyright
© Canadian Physiotherapy Association, 2014. All rights reserved.
History
Published online: 15 November 2013
Published in print: Winter 2014
Key Words:
Mots clés :
Notes
Physiotherapy Canada 2014; 66(1);36–43; doi:10.3138/ptc.2012-68
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Related Content
Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
Download article citation data for:
Physiotherapy Canada 2014 66:1, 36-43
Physiotherapy Canada 2014 66:1, 36-43