4.6 Review

Reported quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions has improved over time

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 64, 期 6, 页码 594-601

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.08.009

关键词

Randomized controlled trials as a topic; Physical therapy (specialty); Research methodology; Quality ratings; Regression analysis; Time factors

资金

  1. Motor Accidents Authority of New South Wales, Australia
  2. National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To describe the change with time of the reported methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions. Study Design and Setting: For all trials of physiotherapy interventions indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), year of publication, and methodological quality scores (11-item PEDro scale and total PEDro score [range, 0-10]) were extracted. The relationship between trial quality and time was evaluated using regression analyses for the PEDro total score and individual quality items. The study was carried out in a university research center. Results: Data from 10,025 trials published since 1960 were analyzed. The total PEDro score was related to time (year of publication), with the total score increasing by an average of similar to 0.6 points each decade between 1960 and 2009. The reported use of eight of the 11 individual items from the PEDro scale (intention-to-treat analysis, concealed allocation, groups similar at baseline, reporting of results of between-group statistical comparisons, point measures and measures of variability reported, subjects randomly allocated to groups, eligibility criteria specified, and blinding of assessors) also improved with time. Conclusion: The reported methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions has improved over time. Further improvement is still necessary. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据