ReviewPhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2025
Does the Scientific Literature on Fractures Support Evidence-Based Physiotherapy? Mapping the Evidence on the PEDro Platform.
Review in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2025. 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.
- Does the Scientific Literature on Fractures Support Evidence-Based Physiotherapy? Mapping the Evidence on the PEDro Platform.Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBone fractures impose significant healthcare costs and are among the musculoskeletal conditions most requiring rehabilitation. Evidence-based practice (EBP) is the recommended approach for ensuring quality and consistency of care. However, does the scientific literature on fractures adequately support evidence-based physiotherapy? PURPOSE: To map the profile of fracture studies indexed on the PEDro platform, focusing on study designs, body segments studied, publication decade, and geographical distribution.
methodsTwo authors independently extracted data from the PEDro platform using the term fracture in the musculoskeletal and orthopedic subdiscipline filter. Studies without abstracts or full articles available and those not primarily focused on fractures were excluded.
resultsSix hundred sixty-seven met the inclusion criteria, representing 3.2% of all musculoskeletal and orthopedic studies. Twelve clinical practice guidelines, 141 systematic reviews and 514 CTs were identified. The studies prioritize the hip (35.7%) and wrist (23.1%). Clinical trials were concentrated in Europe (47.8%), Asia (24.9%), North America (21%), and Oceania (11%), with few studies from South America (1.2%), Africa (0.2%) and none from Central America. The average PEDro scale score was 5.35 ± 1.81, with a peak in study production observed in the 2010s.
conclusionFracture studies on the PEDro platform are limited in number and quality. Many segments lack clinical guidelines and systematic reviews or trials. The geographic distribution reflects disparities in scientific production, favoring developed regions. These findings underscore the need for improved research and dissemination efforts, particularly in regions with lower representation.
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.