Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29128407›Full record

ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy

A low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews.

Crystian B Oliveira, Mark R Elkins, Ítalo Ribeiro Lemes, Danilo de Oliveira Silva, Ronaldo V Briani, Henrique Luiz Monteiro, Fábio Mícolis de Azevedo, Rafael Zambelli Pinto

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Brazilian journal of physical therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Local anesthetics as a tool for Staphylococcus spp. control: a systematic review.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Journal impact factor is associated with PRISMA endorsement, but not with the methodological quality of low back pain systematic reviews: a methodological review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2020
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Crystian B OliveiraDepartmento de Fisioterapia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.
Mark R ElkinsSydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Centre for Evidence-Based Physiotherapy, Musculoskeletal Health Sydney, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Ítalo Ribeiro LemesDepartmento de Fisioterapia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.
Danilo de Oliveira SilvaLa Trobe Sports and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, School of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia.
Ronaldo V BrianiDepartmento de Fisioterapia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.
Henrique Luiz MonteiroDepartamento de Educação Física, Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Bauru, SP, Brazil.
Fábio Mícolis de AzevedoDepartmento de Fisioterapia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.
Rafael Zambelli PintoDepartmento de Fisioterapia, Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil; Departamento de Fisioterapia, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil. Electronic address: rafaelzambelli@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews provide the best evidence about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Although systematic reviews are conducted with explicit and transparent methods, discrepancies might occur between the protocol and the publication.

objectivesTo estimate the proportion of systematic reviews of physical therapy interventions that are registered, the methodological quality of (un)registered systematic reviews and the prevalence of outcome reporting bias in registered systematic reviews.

methodsA random sample of 150 systematic reviews published in 2015 indexed on the PEDro database. We included systematic reviews written in English, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews tool was used. Relative risk was calculated to explore the association between meta-analysis results and the changes in the outcomes.

resultsTwenty-nine (19%) systematic reviews were registered. Funding and publication in a journal with an impact factor higher than 5.0 were associated with registration. Registered systematic reviews demonstrated significantly higher methodological quality (median=8) than unregistered systematic reviews (median=5). Nine (31%) registered systematic reviews demonstrated discrepancies between protocol and publication with no evidence that such discrepancies were applied to favor the statistical significance of the intervention (RR=1.16; 95% CI: 0.63-2.12).

conclusionA low proportion of systematic reviews in the physical therapy field are registered. The registered systematic reviews showed high methodological quality without evidence of outcome reporting bias. Further strategies should be implemented to encourage registration.

Indexed as

Physical Therapy ModalitiesChecklistDelivery of Health CareHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesOutcome reporting biasPhysical therapyQualityRegistrySystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID29128407
PMCPMC5993937

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.