Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24786942›Full record

ArticlePhysical therapy2014

Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysis.

Susan Armijo-Olivo, Greta G Cummings, Jorge Fuentes, Humam Saltaji, Christine Ha, Annabritt Chisholm, Dion Pasichnyk, Todd Rogers

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Physical therapy, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Susan Armijo-OlivoS. Armijo-Olivo, BScPT, MScPT, PhD, CLEAR (Connecting Leadership and Research) Outcomes Research Program, Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, 3-48 Corbett Hall, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2G4. sla4@ualberta.ca susanarmijo@gmail.com.
Greta G CummingsG.G. Cummings, PhD, RN, FCAHS, CLEAR Outcomes Research Program, University of Alberta, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, University of Alberta.
Jorge FuentesJ. Fuentes, BPT, PhD, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta, and Department of Physical Therapy, Catholic University of Maule, Talca, Chile.
Humam SaltajiH. Saltaji, DDS, MSc(Ortho), Orthodontic Graduate Program, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta.
Christine HaC. Ha, BSc, Rehabilitation Research Center, Faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine, University of Alberta.
Annabritt ChisholmA. Chisholm, BSc, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta.
Dion PasichnykD. Pasichnyk, MSc(Epidemiology), Quality Management in Clinical Research, University of Alberta.
Todd RogersT. Rogers, PhD, Centre for Research in Applied Measurement and Evaluation, University of Alberta.

Funding

Canadian Institutes of Health Research
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous tools and individual items have been proposed to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The frequency of use of these items varies according to health area, which suggests a lack of agreement regarding their relevance to trial quality or risk of bias.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were: (1) to identify the underlying component structure of items and (2) to determine relevant items to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of trials in physical therapy by using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA).

designA methodological research design was used, and an EFA was performed.

methodsRandomized controlled trials used for this study were randomly selected from searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two reviewers used 45 items gathered from 7 different quality tools to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the principal axis factoring (PAF) method followed by varimax rotation.

resultsPrincipal axis factoring identified 34 items loaded on 9 common factors: (1) selection bias; (2) performance and detection bias; (3) eligibility, intervention details, and description of outcome measures; (4) psychometric properties of the main outcome; (5) contamination and adherence to treatment; (6) attrition bias; (7) data analysis; (8) sample size; and (9) control and placebo adequacy. LIMITATION: Because of the exploratory nature of the results, a confirmatory factor analysis is needed to validate this model.

conclusionsTo the authors' knowledge, this is the first factor analysis to explore the underlying component items used to evaluate the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in physical therapy. The items and factors represent a starting point for evaluating the methodological quality and risk of bias in physical therapy trials. Empirical evidence of the association among these items with treatment effects and a confirmatory factor analysis of these results are needed to validate these items.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesQuality Assurance, Health CareBiasFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID24786942
PMCPMC4155037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.