ReviewPhysiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy2026
Use of the Spanish Version of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) Scale: A Meta-Research Study of Systematic Reviews.
Review in Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundWidely used to assess the quality of trials in physical therapy, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale has been translated into several languages, including Spanish. Nevertheless, no data are available on the use of the Spanish version of the scale or its adoption by Spanish-speaking authors. PURPOSE: To examine the use of the PEDro scale by Spanish-speaking authors, and the application of its Spanish version since its publication.
methodsA meta-research study of systematic reviews was conducted to identify potentially eligible systematic reviews. From 6349 references screened, 4196 reports fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were sought for retrieval. A data extraction form was developed and piloted with a random sample of 32.6% of the included papers, with average inter-coder agreement of Kappa = 0.84 for categorical variables, and an average intra-class correlation of ICC = 0.98 for continuous variables. Primary outcomes included the language, Spanish-speaking country of the study, country of the authors, and use of the PEDro scale and field of application.
resultsThis meta-research included a total of 650 studies in Spanish or English that applied the PEDro scale and had primary authors affiliated with a research institution in Spain or another Spanish-speaking country. The publication language was predominantly English (477 studies), and the most common Spanish-speaking countries listed were Spain (531), Chile (42), and Colombia (41). 612 systematic reviews reported having used the PEDro scale, providing 809 citations from 33 studies. A total of 21 studies specified the scale language, which was Spanish in 13 studies, and 51 studies stated having used the Spanish version of the PEDro scale.
conclusionsOnly 3.5% of the 650 systematic reviews published by authors from Spanish-speaking countries specified the scale language, which was Spanish in 13 studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO under code CRD42024575584.
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.