Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34980625›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Comparison between 2000 and 2018 on the reporting of statistical significance and clinical relevance in physiotherapy clinical trials in six major physiotherapy journals: a meta-research design.

Arianne Verhagen, Peter William Stubbs, Poonam Mehta, David Kennedy, Anthony M Nasser, Camila Quel de Oliveira, Joshua W Pate, Ian W Skinner, Alana B McCambridge

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Arianne VerhagenDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia arianne.verhagen@uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-6195-0128
Peter William StubbsDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Poonam MehtaDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David KennedyDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Anthony M NasserDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Camila Quel de OliveiraDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Joshua W PateDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ian W SkinnerDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Alana B McCambridgeDiscipline of Physiotherapy, Graduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

designMeta-research.

objectiveTo compare the prevalence of reporting p values, effect estimates and clinical relevance in physiotherapy randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the years 2000 and 2018.

methodsWe performed a meta-research study of physiotherapy RCTs obtained from six major physiotherapy peer-reviewed journals that were published in the years 2000 and 2018. We searched the databases Embase, Medline and PubMed in May 2019, and extracted data on the study characteristics and whether articles reported on statistical significance, effect estimates and confidence intervals for baseline, between-group, and within-group differences, and clinical relevance. Data were presented using descriptive statistics and inferences were made based on proportions. A 20% difference between 2000 and 2018 was regarded as a meaningful difference.

resultsWe found 140 RCTs: 39 were published in 2000 and 101 in 2018. Overall, there was a high prevalence (>90%) of reporting p values for the main (between-group) analysis, with no difference between years. Statistical significance testing was frequently used for evaluating baseline differences, increasing from 28% in 2000 to 61.4% in 2018. The prevalence of reporting effect estimates, CIs and the mention of clinical relevance increased from 2000 to 2018 by 26.6%, 34% and 32.8% respectively. Despite an increase in use in 2018, over 40% of RCTs failed to report effect estimates, CIs and clinical relevance of results.

conclusionThe prevalence of using p values remains high in physiotherapy research. Although the proportion of reporting effect estimates, CIs and clinical relevance is higher in 2018 compared to 2000, many publications still fail to report and interpret study findings in this way.

Indexed as

MedicinePeriodicals as TopicHumansMEDLINEPhysical Therapy ModalitiesResearch Designclinical trialseducation & training (see medical education & training)epidemiologyprimary carerehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID34980625
PMCPMC8724707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.