SynthesisNeurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology2022
Reporting of "usual care" as the control group in randomized clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions for multiple sclerosis is poor: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting Completeness of Usual Care Comparator Groups in Exercise-Based Trials for Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Research Systematic Review.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Integrated Digital Solutions to Empower Older Adults in Aspects Related to Their Health: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- Mapping Physiotherapy Approaches for Stroke Survivors in Catalonia: A Cross-Sectional Study.Revista de neurologia · 2025Observational
- Clinical relevance of the effects of robotic rehabilitation for upper limb recovery after stroke in randomized studies: a systematic review with meta-analysis.Archives of physiotherapyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the description of interventions defined as "usual care" in control groups with those provided in experimental groups in physiotherapy randomized clinical trials for multiple sclerosis.
methodsTwo independent reviewers conducted a literature search and study selection from five databases from their inception to February 2021. Randomized clinical trials aimed to physiotherapy multiple sclerosis treatment and providing "usual care" in the control group were included. Intervention reporting was assessed using the TIDieR checklist. Word and reference counts for each group were extracted. The methodological quality was assessed by the PEDro scale.
resultsTwenty-four articles were included. The TIDieR total scores, word, and reference count were statistically higher in the experimental group, when compared to the control group (p < 0.001). The TIDieR total score is not correlated with PEDro score, word, publication year, or reference counts.
conclusionControl treatments identified as "usual care" are underdescribed when compared to experimental treatments, affecting the validity, generalizability, and interpretability of results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.