ReviewBrazilian journal of physical therapy
Reporting of confidence intervals, achievement of intended sample size, and adjustment for multiple primary outcomes in randomised trials of physical therapy interventions: an analysis of 100 representatively sampled trials.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe physical therapy profession has made efforts to increase the use of confidence intervals due to the valuable information they provide for clinical decision-making. Confidence intervals indicate the precision of the results and describe the strength and direction of a treatment effect measure.
objectivesTo determine the prevalence of reporting of confidence intervals, achievement of intended sample size, and adjustment for multiple primary outcomes in randomised trials of physical therapy interventions.
methodsWe randomly selected 100 trials published in 2021 and indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Two independent reviewers extracted the number of participants, any sample size calculation, and any adjustments for multiple primary outcomes. We extracted whether at least one between-group comparison was reported with a 95 % confidence interval and whether any confidence intervals were interpreted.
resultsThe prevalence of use of confidence intervals was 47 % (95 % CI 38, 57). Only 6 % of trials (95 % CI: 3, 12) both reported and interpreted a confidence interval. Among the 100 trials, 59 (95 % CI: 49, 68) calculated and achieved the required sample size. Among the 100 trials, 19 % (95 % CI: 13, 28) had a problem with unadjusted multiplicity on the primary outcomes.
conclusionsAround half of trials of physical therapy interventions published in 2021 reported confidence intervals around between-group differences. This represents an increase of 5 % from five years earlier. Very few trials interpreted the confidence intervals. Most trials reported a sample size calculation, and among these most achieved that sample size. There is still a need to increase the use of adjustment for multiple comparisons.
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.