A Thematic Survey on the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: The Case of Multiple Sclerosis.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.1097/NPT.0000000000000437
Lucia Ventura, Pedro Moreno-Navarro, Gianluca Martinez, Lucia Cugusi, David Barbado, Francisco Jose Vera-Garcia, Alon Kalron, Zeevi Dvir, Franca Deriu, Andrea Manca
{"title":"A Thematic Survey on the Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials in Rehabilitation: The Case of Multiple Sclerosis.","authors":"Lucia Ventura,&nbsp;Pedro Moreno-Navarro,&nbsp;Gianluca Martinez,&nbsp;Lucia Cugusi,&nbsp;David Barbado,&nbsp;Francisco Jose Vera-Garcia,&nbsp;Alon Kalron,&nbsp;Zeevi Dvir,&nbsp;Franca Deriu,&nbsp;Andrea Manca","doi":"10.1097/NPT.0000000000000437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Optimal reporting is a critical element of scholarly communications. Several initiatives, such as the EQUATOR checklists, have raised authors' awareness about the importance of adequate research reports. On these premises, we aimed at appraising the reporting quality of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with rehabilitation interventions. Given the breadth of such literature, we focused on rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis (MS), which was taken as a model of a challenging condition for all the rehabilitation professionals.A thematic methodological survey was performed to critically examine rehabilitative RCTs published in the last 2 decades in MS populations according to 3 main reporting themes: (1) basic methodological and statistical aspects; (2) reproducibility and responsiveness of measurements; and (3) clinical meaningfulness of the change.</p><p><strong>Summary of key points: </strong>Of the initial 526 RCTs retrieved, 370 satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The survey revealed several sources of weakness affecting all the predefined themes: among these, 25.7% of the studies complemented the P values with the confidence interval of the change; 46.8% reported the effect size of the observed differences; 40.0% conducted power analyses to establish the sample size; 4.3% performed retest procedures to determine the outcomes' reproducibility and responsiveness; and 5.9% appraised the observed differences against thresholds for clinically meaningful change, for example, the minimal important change.</p><p><strong>Recommendations for clinical practice: </strong>The RCTs dealing with MS rehabilitation still suffer from incomplete reporting. Adherence to evidence-based checklists and attention to measurement issues and their impact on data interpretation can improve study design and reporting in order to truly advance the field of rehabilitation in people with MS.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1 available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A424 ).</p>","PeriodicalId":49030,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/NPT.0000000000000437","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and purpose: Optimal reporting is a critical element of scholarly communications. Several initiatives, such as the EQUATOR checklists, have raised authors' awareness about the importance of adequate research reports. On these premises, we aimed at appraising the reporting quality of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) dealing with rehabilitation interventions. Given the breadth of such literature, we focused on rehabilitation for multiple sclerosis (MS), which was taken as a model of a challenging condition for all the rehabilitation professionals.A thematic methodological survey was performed to critically examine rehabilitative RCTs published in the last 2 decades in MS populations according to 3 main reporting themes: (1) basic methodological and statistical aspects; (2) reproducibility and responsiveness of measurements; and (3) clinical meaningfulness of the change.

Summary of key points: Of the initial 526 RCTs retrieved, 370 satisfied the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. The survey revealed several sources of weakness affecting all the predefined themes: among these, 25.7% of the studies complemented the P values with the confidence interval of the change; 46.8% reported the effect size of the observed differences; 40.0% conducted power analyses to establish the sample size; 4.3% performed retest procedures to determine the outcomes' reproducibility and responsiveness; and 5.9% appraised the observed differences against thresholds for clinically meaningful change, for example, the minimal important change.

Recommendations for clinical practice: The RCTs dealing with MS rehabilitation still suffer from incomplete reporting. Adherence to evidence-based checklists and attention to measurement issues and their impact on data interpretation can improve study design and reporting in order to truly advance the field of rehabilitation in people with MS.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see the Video, Supplemental Digital Content 1 available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A424 ).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
康复随机对照试验报告质量专题调查:以多发性硬化症为例。
背景和目的:最佳报告是学术交流的关键因素。一些倡议,例如EQUATOR清单,提高了作者对充分的研究报告的重要性的认识。在这些前提下,我们旨在评估已发表的涉及康复干预的随机对照试验(rct)的报告质量。鉴于此类文献的广度,我们将重点放在多发性硬化症(MS)的康复上,这是所有康复专业人员面临的一个具有挑战性的疾病模型。根据3个主要报告主题,对过去20年发表的MS人群康复性随机对照试验进行了专题方法学调查:(1)基本方法学和统计学方面;(2)测量的再现性和响应性;(3)临床意义。关键点总结:在最初检索到的526项rct中,有370项符合纳入标准,被纳入分析。调查揭示了影响所有预定义主题的几个弱点来源:其中,25.7%的研究用变化的置信区间补充了P值;46.8%的人报告了观察到的差异的效应大小;40.0%进行功率分析以确定样本量;4.3%进行复检程序以确定结果的重复性和反应性;5.9%的人评价观察到的差异与临床有意义变化的阈值,例如,最小重要变化。临床实践建议:关于多发性硬化症康复的随机对照试验仍然存在报道不完整的问题。坚持基于证据的检查表,关注测量问题及其对数据解释的影响,可以改善研究设计和报告,从而真正推动ms患者康复领域的发展。视频摘要可获得作者的更多见解(参见视频,补充数字内容1可在http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A424获得)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy
Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
2.60%
发文量
63
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy (JNPT) is an indexed resource for dissemination of research-based evidence related to neurologic physical therapy intervention. High standards of quality are maintained through a rigorous, double-blinded, peer-review process and adherence to standards recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. With an international editorial board made up of preeminent researchers and clinicians, JNPT publishes articles of global relevance for examination, evaluation, prognosis, intervention, and outcomes for individuals with movement deficits due to neurologic conditions. Through systematic reviews, research articles, case studies, and clinical perspectives, JNPT promotes the integration of evidence into theory, education, research, and practice of neurologic physical therapy, spanning the continuum from pathophysiology to societal participation.
期刊最新文献
International Neurological Physical Therapy Association: Best Abstracts. Improving Executive Function and Dual-Task Cost in Parkinson Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. The Role of the Cervical Spine in Dizziness. Motor and Non-Motor Factors of Concern About Falling and Fear of Falling in Multiple Sclerosis. Vagus Nerve Stimulation Paired With Rehabilitation for Chronic Stroke: Characterizing Responders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1