Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Physical Therapy | Research

The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals

Authors: Diane Rosen, Nils L. Reiter, Barbara Vogel, Robert Prill

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE).

Methods

This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs).

Results

In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature.

Conclusion

Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.

Available only for authorised users

Altbach PG, De Wit H. Too much academic research is being published. Int High Educ. 2018;96:2–3.

Wordsrated. Number of Academic Papers Published Per Year. 2023. Available from: https://wordsrated.com/number-of-academic-papers-published-per-year/. [cited 2023 Nov 9].

Garba S. Proliferations of Scientific Medical Journals: A Burden or A Blessing. Oman Med J. 2010. Available from: http://www.omjournal.org/fultext_PDF.aspx?DetailsID=34&type=fultext. [cited 2023 Apr 12].

Kim D, Hasford J. Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Fransen M, McConnell S, Bell M. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2003;(3):CD004286.

Fransen M, McConnell S. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Chichester: Wiley; 2008. p. CD004376.pub2. Available from: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub2.

Fransen M, McConnell S, Harmer AR, Van der Esch M, Simic M, Bennell KL. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. Available from: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub3.

Verhagen AP, Ferreira M, Reijneveld-van de Vendel EAE, Teirlinck CH, Runhaar J, van Middelkoop M, et al. Do we need another trial on exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(9):1266-9.

Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;21: i5440.CrossRef

10.

Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:151–7.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Lund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. The Lancet. 2016;387(10014):123–4.CrossRef

12.

Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2: Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:158–66.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Andreasen J, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K, et al. Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0276955.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Draborg E, Andreasen J, Nørgaard B, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K, et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results—a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Andreasen J, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K, et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to inform study design - a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;145:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.01.007.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Engelking A, Cavar M, Puljak L. The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: a meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Pain. 2018;22(10):1844–9.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(1):50.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hoderlein X, Moseley AM, Elkins MR. Citation of prior research has increased in introduction and discussion sections with time: a survey of clinical trials in physiotherapy. Clin Trials. 2017;14(4):372–80.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60329-9.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Smith R. What are medical journals for and how well do they fulfil those functions?. BMJ Opinion. 2016. Available from: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/04/19/richard-smith-what-are-medical-journals-for-and-how-well-do-they-fulfil-those-functions/. [cited 2023 Apr 12].

21.

Ioannidis JPA. Meta-research: Why research on research matters. PLOS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2005468.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

PEDro. PEDro homepage. 2021. Available from: https://pedro.org.au. [cited 2023 Apr 10].

23.

PubMed. PubMed homepage. 2021. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. [cited 2023 Apr 10].

24.

JCR. SCIE Clarivate Web of Science. 2021. Available from: https://www.webofscience.com. [cited 2021 Sep 23].

25.

EQUATOR Network. 2021. Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/. [cited 2021 Feb 1].

26.

ICMJE. 2021. Available from: https://www.icmje.org. [cited 2021 Feb 1].

27.

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.

28.

Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Lancet. RCT Author guidelines. Lancet. 2022. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/RCTguidelines-1668613849943.pdf. [cited 2022 Feb 3].

30.

SAGE. SAGE homepage. 2021. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com. [cited 2021 Dec 15].

31.

Frontiers. Frontiers homepage. 2021. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org. [cited 2021 Dec 15].

32.

Elsevier. Elsevier homepage. 2022. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/. [cited 2021 Dec 15].

33.

CONSORT- Guidance for reporting a randomised trial. 2023. Available from: https://www.goodreports.org/reporting-checklists/consort/info/#2a. [cited 2023 Apr 15].

34.

Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-based research series-paper 3: using an evidence-based research approach to place your results into context after the study is performed to ensure usefulness of the conclusion. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:167–71.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Ioannidis JPA. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses: mass production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:1–11.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Van Der Braak K, Ghannad M, Orelio C, Heus P, Damen JAA, Spijker R, et al. The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):191.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

B Aledi L, Flumignan CD, Trevisani VF, Miranda Jr F. Interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;2023(6). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013711.pub2. [cited 2023 Aug 18].

39.

Momosaki R, Tsuboi M, Yasufuku Y, Furudate K, Kamo T, Uda K, et al. Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews in physiotherapy: a systematic search and analytical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019;42(2):97–105.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Nascimento Leite M, Kamper SJ, O’Connell NE, Michaleff ZA, Fisher E, Viana Silva P, et al. Physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023;2023(7). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013527.pub2. [cited 2023 Aug 18].

41.

Smart KM, Wand BM, O’Connell NE. Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016(3). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub2. [cited 2023 Aug 18].

Title: The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals
Authors: Diane Rosen
Nils L. Reiter
Barbara Vogel
Robert Prill
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Physical Therapy
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02427-7

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Interventions to reduce inequalities for pregnant women living with disadvantage in high-income countries: an umbrella review protocol

Global prevalence of sexual dysfunction in cardiovascular patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Psychometric properties of stigma and discrimination measurement tools for persons living with HIV: a systematic review using the COSMIN methodology

Understanding and treating body image disturbances in eating disorders through body illusion interventions: a scoping review protocol

Therapeutics effects of bovine colostrum applications on gastrointestinal diseases: a systematic review

Effects of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid supplementation on appetite: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials