A low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews

Página do item simplificado
dc.creatorCrystian Bitencourt Soares de Oliveira
dc.creatorMark Russell Elkins
dc.creatorÍtalo Ribeiro Lemes
dc.creatorDanilo de Oliveira Silva
dc.creatorRonaldo Valdir Briani
dc.creatorHenrique Luiz Monteiro
dc.creatorFábio Mícolis de Azevedo
dc.creatorRafael Zambelli de Almeida Pinto
dc.date.accessioned2023-01-09T12:22:43Z
dc.date.accessioned2025-09-09T00:39:52Z
dc.date.available2023-01-09T12:22:43Z
dc.date.issued2018-05
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjpt.2017.09.009
dc.identifier.issn1809-9246
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1843/48780
dc.languageeng
dc.publisherUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais
dc.relation.ispartofBrazilian Journal of Physical Therapy
dc.rightsAcesso Restrito
dc.subjectRevisão sistemática
dc.subjectQualidade, acesso e avaliação da assistência à saúde
dc.subjectFisioterapia
dc.subject.otherRegistry
dc.subject.otherOutcome reporting bias
dc.subject.otherQuality
dc.subject.otherSystematic reviews
dc.subject.otherPhysical therapy
dc.titleA low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews
dc.typeArtigo de periódico
local.citation.epage183
local.citation.issue3
local.citation.spage177
local.citation.volume22
local.description.resumoBackground: Systematic reviews provide the best evidence about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Although systematic reviews are conducted with explicit and transparent methods, discrepancies might occur between the protocol and the publication. Objectives: To estimate the proportion of systematic reviews of physical therapy interventions that are registered, the methodological quality of (un)registered systematic reviews and the prevalence of outcome reporting bias in registered systematic reviews. Methods: A random sample of 150 systematic reviews published in 2015 indexed on the PEDro database. We included systematic reviews written in English, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews tool was used. Relative risk was calculated to explore the association between meta-analysis results and the changes in the outcomes. Results: Twenty-nine (19%) systematic reviews were registered. Funding and publication in a journal with an impact factor higher than 5.0 were associated with registration. Registered systematic reviews demonstrated significantly higher methodological quality (median = 8) than unregistered systematic reviews (median = 5). Nine (31%) registered systematic reviews demonstrated discrepancies between protocol and publication with no evidence that such discrepancies were applied to favor the statistical significance of the intervention (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.63–2.12). Conclusion: A low proportion of systematic reviews in the physical therapy field are registered. The registered systematic reviews showed high methodological quality without evidence of outcome reporting bias. Further strategies should be implemented to encourage registration.
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-6911-7018
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2052-7366
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9245-287X
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-0753-2432
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0452-7753
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-6639-1532
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4187-7058
local.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-2775-860X
local.publisher.countryBrasil
local.publisher.departmentEEF - DEPARTAMENTO DE FISIOTERAPIA
local.publisher.initialsUFMG
local.url.externahttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1413355517301223?via%3Dihub

Arquivos

Licença do pacote

Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Imagem de Miniatura
Nome:
License.txt
Tamanho:
1.99 KB
Formato:
Plain Text
Descrição:
Baixar

Coleções

Artigo de Periódico

Logo UFMG