ArticleArchives of physiotherapy2023
"Trustworthiness," confidence in estimated effects, and confidently translating research into clinical practice.
Article in Archives of physiotherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Caution is necessary in interpreting musculoskeletal physiotherapy intervention outcomes: a methodological review of physiotherapy neuromusculoskeletal reviews.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Is there 'trustworthy' evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- A Critical Appraisal of Reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials Investigating Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment: A Meta-Research Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- 'Trustworthy' systematic reviews can only result in meaningful conclusions if the quality of randomized clinical trials and the certainty of evidence improves: an update on the 'trustworthy' living systematic review project.The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2024Article
- Why do 'Trustworthy' Living Systematic Reviews Matter?The Journal of manual & manipulative therapy · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Trustworthy, preprocessed sources of evidence, such as systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, are crucial for practicing clinicians. Confidence in estimated effects is related to how different the outcome data were between the two groups. Factors including the effect size, variability of the effect, research integrity, research methods, and selected outcome measures impact confidence in the estimated effect. The current evidence suggests that post-randomization biases cannot be ruled out with a high degree of certainty in published research, limiting the utility of preprocessed sources for clinicians. Research should be prospectively registered to improve this situation, and fidelity with prospective intent should be verified to minimize biases and strengthen confidence in estimated effects. Otherwise, discussions related to preprocessed literature, including P-values, point estimates of effect, confidence intervals, post-randomization biases, external and internal validity measures, and the confidence in estimated effects required to translate research into practice confidently, are all moot points.
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.