Clinical trial registration has become more prevalent in physical therapy but it is still inadequate: A meta-research study.

BACKGROUND: A study using data from 2009 showed low prevalence and inadequate trial registration in physiotherapy. In 2013, a joint editorial recommended prospective registration in physiotherapy journals. Ten years later it is unclear whether the joint editorial achieved its intended benefit. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the proportion of randomized trials adequately registered and the extent of selective reporting of outcomes in trials of physiotherapy interventions published in 2019 and to compare these data with equivalent published data from 2009. DESIGN: Meta-research study. METHOD: A random sample of 200 trials published in 2019 was used. Evidence of registration was sought on trial registers and by contacting authors. Data from the article was compared with data from the trial registration. Data from this sample of trial published in 2019 were compared with equivalent published data from 2009. RESULTS: In 2019, the proportion of trials that were registered was 63% versus 34% in 2009 (absolute difference 29%). In 2019, 18% of the trials were prospectively registered compared to 6% in 2009 (absolute difference 12%). Unambiguous primary outcomes (i.e., method and timepoints of measurement clearly defined in the trial registry entry) were registered for 30% in 2019. Registration was adequate (i.e., prospective with unambiguous primary outcomes) for 8%, compared with 3% in 2009 (absolute difference 5%). Selective outcome reporting occurred in 73% of the trials in which it was assessable; in 2009 this proportion was 47% (absolute difference 26%). CONCLUSIONS: Registration of randomized trials in physiotherapy increased in the past decade, but it is still inadequate. More effort is still required to implement and enforce adequate registration.

The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) has better free full-text access than PubMed: An observational study.

BACKGROUND: Access to full-text articles is an essential element of evidence-based practice. OBJECTIVE: Estimate the percentage of articles in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) that have free full-text access and compare free access between PEDro and PubMed. Secondary objectives for access via PEDro: determine if publication year and geographic location impact on free access; determine if adding a link to a portable document format (PDF) locator website would improve free access; and evaluate the association between article characteristics and free access. METHODS: This observational study used a random sample of 200 articles published in 2000-2019 and indexed in PEDro. Data collectors in Australia, Brazil, Nepal, and Spain attempted to access free full text for each article via PEDro. One data collector attempted to access free full text via PubMed. One data collector attempted to access full text via a PDF locator (http://www.pdfsearchengine.net/). The percentage (95% confidence interval [CI]) of articles with free full-text access from PEDro, PubMed, and the PDF locator website were calculated. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between free full-text access and article characteristics. RESULTS: Free full text could be accessed via PEDro for 51% of the articles (95% CI: 44, 58). PEDro had 4% higher free access than PubMed (95% CI: 1, 7). Access via PEDro did not vary systematically with time, geographic location, or article characteristics. Access improved by 9% (95% CI: 6, 14) by adding a PDF locator website. CONCLUSIONS: PEDro is a good source of free full-text articles for physical therapists and other rehabilitation professionals. Evidence resources, professional organisations, employers, researchers, and research agencies could all help to increase access to free full text.

Using research to guide practice: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).

BACKGROUND: The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) is a free, preeminent, global resource to support evidence-based physical therapy. PEDro provides rapid access to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines evaluating physical therapy interventions. METHODS: This paper describes the PEDro scale, PEDro contents, who uses PEDro, searching, browsing the latest content, and developing skills in evidence-based physical therapy. Strategies specifically developed to break down barriers for Portuguese-speaking physical therapists are emphasized. RESULTS: All trials indexed in PEDro are assessed for methodological quality using the 10-point PEDro scale. These ratings are used to rank search results. In August 2019 PEDro indexed 44,309 articles: 34,619 trials, 9004 reviews, and 686 guidelines. The number of trials is predicted to double by 2025. PEDro users come from 214 countries. Physical therapists in Brazil are the largest users (23% of all searches). Physical therapists are encouraged to use the PEDro advanced search page to find answers for their clinical questions. PEDro's 'Evidence in your inbox' allows physical therapists to browse the latest content. To assist users develop skills in evidence-based physical therapy, PEDro includes tutorials and a series of 'how to' videos. PEDro web-site is fully available in Portuguese and English. CONCLUSION: PEDro facilitates the use of high-quality clinical research by physical therapy clinicians, educators, students, and researchers. In 2019 PEDro celebrated its twentieth anniversary. Some enhancements to mark this milestone include launching a new database called DiTA (Diagnostic Test Accuracy) that focuses on the accuracy of diagnostic tests used by physical therapists.

Tackling the language barrier to implementing research into practice: A survey of usage of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database.

BACKGROUND: Language is a barrier to implementing research evidence into practice. Whilst the majority of the world's population speak languages other than English, English has become the dominant language of publication for research in healthcare. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to quantify the usage of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) web-site (www.pedro.org.au) and training videos by language, including the use of online translation, and to calculate relative usage of the different sections of the web-site. METHODS: Google Analytics was used to track usage of the PEDro web-site for July 2017 to June 2018. The number of views of each of the PEDro training videos was downloaded from YouTube for January 2015 to August 2018. The pageviews and videos were categorized by language and, for pageviews, web-site section. RESULTS: 2,828,422 pageviews were included in the analyses. The English-language sections had the largest number of pageviews (58.61%), followed by Portuguese (15.57%), and Spanish (12.02%). Users applied online translation tools to translate selected content of the PEDro web-site into 41 languages. The PEDro training videos had been viewed 78,150 times. The three most commonly viewed languages were English (58.80%), Portuguese (19.83%), and Spanish (6.13%). CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial use of some of the translated versions of the resources offered by PEDro. Future efforts could focus on region-specific promotion of the language resources that are underutilized in PEDro. The developers of PEDro and PEDro users can work collaboratively to facilitate uptake and translate resources into languages other than English to reduce the language barrier in using research to guide practice.

Use of 95% confidence intervals in the reporting of between-group differences in randomized controlled trials: analysis of a representative sample of 200 physical therapy trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of the use of 95% confidence intervals in the reporting of between-group differences in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions and to determine if the prevalence is changing over time. METHODS: Observational study, including an analysis of 200 trials from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database: 50 from each of the years 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016. The primary outcome used was the prevalence of the between-group difference presented with 95% confidence intervals. We also extracted trial characteristics for descriptive purposes (i.e., number of participants, number of sites involved in recruitment, country(ies) of data collection, funding, subdiscipline of physical therapy, publication language and total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score). RESULTS: Most commonly, the trials were published in English (89%) and classified in the musculoskeletal subdiscipline (23%). The overall prevalence of use of confidence intervals was 29% and there was a consistent increase in reporting between 1986 and 2016, with peak usage in the 2016 cohort (42%). Confidence intervals were more likely to be used in trials that had received funding, were conducted in Europe and Oceania, and in trials with a Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of at least 6/10. CONCLUSIONS: Most trials of physical therapy interventions do not report confidence intervals around between-group differences. However, use of confidence intervals is increasing steadily, especially among high-quality trials. Physical therapists must understand confidence intervals so that they can understand a growing number of trials in physical therapy.

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

BACKGROUND: 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.

Usage evaluation of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) among Brazilian physical therapists.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) is widely and equally used by physical therapists in Brazil. As PEDro is considered a key resource to support evidence-based physical therapy, analyses of PEDro usage could reflect the extent of dissemination of evidence-based practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe the usage of PEDro among the five regions of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) and, in more detail, in the South American region and Brazil over a 5-year period. METHOD: PEDro home-page sessions and the number of searches performed were logged for a 5-year period (2010-2014). Absolute usage and relative usage were calculated for each region of the WCPT, each country in the South American region of WCPT, and each Regional Council (CREFITO) in Brazil. RESULTS: Europe had the highest absolute and relative usage among the five regions of the WCPT (971 searches per million-population per year), with the South American region ranked 4th in absolute terms and 3rd in relative terms (486). Within the South American region, Brazil accounted for nearly 60% of searches (755). Analysis at a national level revealed that usage per physical therapist in Brazil is very low across all CREFITOs. The highest usage occurred in CREFITO 6 with 1.3 searches per physical therapist per year. CONCLUSIONS: PEDro is not widely and equally used throughout Brazil. Strategies to promote PEDro and to make PEDro more accessible to physical therapists speaking Portuguese are needed.

Usage evaluation of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) among Brazilian physical therapists

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) is widely and equally used by physical therapists in Brazil. As PEDro is considered a key resource to support evidence-based physical therapy, analyses of PEDro usage could reflect the extent of dissemination of evidence-based practice.OBJECTIVE: To describe the usage of PEDro among the five regions of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) and, in more detail, in the South American region and Brazil over a 5-year period.METHOD: PEDro home-page sessions and the number of searches performed were logged for a 5-year period (2010-2014). Absolute usage and relative usage were calculated for each region of the WCPT, each country in the South American region of WCPT, and each Regional Council (CREFITO) in Brazil.RESULTS: Europe had the highest absolute and relative usage among the five regions of the WCPT (971 searches per million-population per year), with the South American region ranked 4th in absolute terms and 3rd in relative terms (486). Within the South American region, Brazil accounted for nearly 60% of searches (755). Analysis at a national level revealed that usage per physical therapist in Brazil is very low across all CREFITOs. The highest usage occurred in CREFITO 6 with 1.3 searches per physical therapist per year.CONCLUSIONS: PEDro is not widely and equally used throughout Brazil. Strategies to promote PEDro and to make PEDro more accessible to physical therapists speaking Portuguese are needed.

The quality and reporting of randomized trials in cardiothoracic physical therapy could be substantially improved.

BACKGROUND: While the number of reports of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy has increased substantially in the last decades, the quality and reporting of randomized trials have never been systematically investigated in the subdiscipline of cardiothoracic physical therapy. The primary aim was to determine the methodological quality and completeness of reporting of cardiothoracic physical therapy trials. Secondary aims were to investigate the range of clinical conditions investigated in these trials and the degree of association between trial characteristics and quality. METHODS: All reports of randomized trials indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and coded as being relevant to cardiothoracic physical therapy were surveyed. PEDro scale individual items and total score were downloaded, and some characteristics included in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement were extracted for each trial report. RESULTS: The mean ± SD total PEDro score for the 2,970 included reports of cardiothoracic trials was 4.7 ± 1.4, with 27% being of moderate to high quality. The clinical conditions studied included chronic lung diseases (32% of the trials), cardiac diseases (20%), cardiovascular surgical conditions (5%), sleep disorders (5%), peripheral vascular disease (4%), acute lung disease (4%), critical illness (3%), and other surgical conditions (3%). The multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that endorsement of the CONSORT statement by the publishing journal, time since publication, evidence of trial registration, sources of funding, description of the sample size calculation, and identification of the primary outcome(s) had associations with the total PEDro score. CONCLUSIONS: There is great potential to improve the quality of the conduct and reporting of trials evaluating the effects of cardiothoracic physical therapy.