ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Adherence to the PRISMA statement and its association with risk of bias in systematic reviews published in rehabilitation journals: A meta-research study.
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, 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do systematic reviews of non- and micro-invasive treatment for caries lesions in children and adolescents adhere to the PRISMA reporting guidelines? A meta-research.Evidence-based dentistry · 2026Pooled it
- Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews underpinning clinical practice guidelines for low back pain: a meta-epidemiological study.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of Physical Exercise Programs in Reducing Secondary Lymphedema Associated with Breast Cancer: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Rethinking the sphenoparietal sinus: implications for lesser sphenoid wing dural arteriovenous fistulas. Illustrative cases.Journal of neurosurgery. Case lessons · 2026Article
- Advances in the management of neuroendocrine tumours: Evidence from a systematic review.Biomedical reports · 2026Article
- The use of botulinum toxin for spasticity in people with spinal cord injury: a scoping review.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2026Article
- Automated analyses of risk of bias and critical appraisal of systematic reviews (ROBIS and AMSTAR 2): a comparison of the performance of 4 large language models.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Large Language Models and the Analyses of Adherence to Reporting Guidelines in Systematic Reviews and Overviews of Reviews (PRISMA 2020 and PRIOR).Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- Article
- Uncovering socioeconomic insights of solar dryers for sustainable agricultural product preservation: A systematic review.Heliyon · 2024Review
- Assessment of Reporting Quality in Orthodontic Systematic Reviews: An Observational Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional analysis of reporting guideline and clinical trial registration policies in nephrology journals.Journal of nephrology · 2024Article
- A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis on the Potential Use of miR-150 as a Novel Biomarker in the Detection and Progression of Multiple Sclerosis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta-epidemiological study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB).
objectivesPrimary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics.
methodsA random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the "rehabilitation" category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration).
resultsThe mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found.
conclusionReporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.
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.