用于研究目的的新康复定义可改善 Cochrane 系统综述中的康复描述

Irene Battel, Chiara Arienti, William Levack, Carlotte Kiekens, Stefano Negrini
{"title":"用于研究目的的新康复定义可改善 Cochrane 系统综述中的康复描述","authors":"Irene Battel,&nbsp;Chiara Arienti,&nbsp;William Levack,&nbsp;Carlotte Kiekens,&nbsp;Stefano Negrini","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <div>\n \n <ul>\n \n <li><span>1. </span>\n \n <p>To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.</p>\n </li>\n \n <li><span>2. </span>\n \n <p>To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.</p>\n </li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not find important gaps in the new definition. All elements of the new definition should be considered when writing review protocols and designing strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70000","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews\",\"authors\":\"Irene Battel,&nbsp;Chiara Arienti,&nbsp;William Levack,&nbsp;Carlotte Kiekens,&nbsp;Stefano Negrini\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cesm.70000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n \\n <ul>\\n \\n <li><span>1. </span>\\n \\n <p>To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.</p>\\n </li>\\n \\n <li><span>2. </span>\\n \\n <p>To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.</p>\\n </li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not find important gaps in the new definition. All elements of the new definition should be considered when writing review protocols and designing strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"2 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70000\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70000\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 2022 年,科克伦康复中心与全球 80 个利益相关方共同制定了用于研究目的的康复新定义,旨在支持和改进初级和证据综合康复研究的编制和报告。 目标 1. 比较 Cochrane 系统综述(CSR)作者如何根据新康复定义的标准描述康复干预。 2. 评估康复定义的局限性或空白。 方法 我们分析了 Cochrane 康复数据库中随机抽取的 124 篇 CSR。我们将用于研究目的的 Cochrane 康复定义转换为一套 13 项标准,根据四项 PICO 要素进行分组,并在每份 CSR 中搜索相应的关键要素。我们核实了这些要素是否存在以及在综述中出现的位置。两名审稿人对每份 CSR 进行评分,必要时由第三名作者解决分歧。我们使用描述性统计对结果进行了分析。 结果 124 篇 CSR 中有 8 篇(6.5%)符合所有康复定义标准。这些 CSR 调查了复杂的康复干预措施的效果。三份(2.4%)CSR 不符合任何 PICO 要素。总体而言,"一般干预 "要素和残疾标准缺失和不明确报告的发生率最高,而 "特定干预 "和 "结果 "要素的报告频率最高,尽管不在综述的 "干预描述 "部分。 讨论 本研究表明,在被认定为康复综述的出版物中,几乎都报告了新康复定义的关键要素,但并不总是一致或清晰的。鉴于康复的主要目的是减少残疾,因此残疾标准经常未被报告。此外,康复的主要内容也经常没有报告。我们没有发现新定义中存在重大缺陷。在撰写综述方案以及设计康复主题的策略和工具时,应考虑新定义的所有要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews

Introduction

In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.

Objective

  • 1.

    To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.

  • 2.

    To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.

Methods

We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.

Results

Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.

Discussion

This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not find important gaps in the new definition. All elements of the new definition should be considered when writing review protocols and designing strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency Issue Information “Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network Issue Information
×
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