The Struggle for Evidence in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine: Publication Rate of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews Is Growing More Than in Other Therapeutic Fields

The influence of bias in randomized controlled trials on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates: what we have learned from meta-epidemiological studies

This study aimed to synthesize evidence from studies that addressed the influence of bias domains in randomized controlled trials on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates and discuss how these findings can maximize the trustworthiness of an RCT in rehabilitation. We screened studies about the influence of bias on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates published until June 2023. The characteristics and results of the included studies were categorized based on methodological characteristics and summarized narratively. We included seven studies with data on 227,806 RCT participants. Our findings showed that rehabilitation intervention effect estimates are likely exaggerated in trials with inadequate/unclear sequence generation and allocation concealment when using continuous outcomes. The influence of blinding was inconsistent and different from the rest of medical science, as meta-epidemiological studies showed overestimation, underestimation, or neutral associations for different types of blinding on rehabilitation treatment effect estimates. Still, it showed a more consistent pattern when looking at patient-reported outcomes. The impact of attrition bias and intention to treat has been analyzed only in two studies with inconsistent results. The risk of reporting bias seems to be associated with overestimation of treatment effects. Bias domains can influence rehabilitation treatment effects in different directions. The evidence is mixed and inconclusive due to the poor methodological quality of RCTs and the limited number and quality of studies looking at the influence of bias and treatment effects in rehabilitation. Further studies about the influence of bias in RCTs on rehabilitation intervention effect estimates are needed.

Rehabilitation Evidence-Based Decision-Making: The READ Model

Evidence-based practice is the foundation of rehabilitation for maximizing client outcomes. However, an unacceptably high number of ineffective or outdated interventions are still implemented, leading to sub-optimal outcomes for clients. This paper proposes the Rehabilitation Evidence bAsed Decision-Making (READ) Model, a decision-making algorithm for evidence-based decision-making in rehabilitation settings. The READ Model outlines a step-by-step layered process for healthcare professionals to collaboratively set goals, and to select appropriate interventions. The READ Model acknowledges the important multi-layered contributions of client's preferences and values, family supports available, and external environmental factors such as funding, availability of services and access. Healthcare professionals can apply the READ Model to choose interventions that are evidence-based, with an appropriate mode, dose, and with regular review, in order to achieve client's goals. Two case studies are used to demonstrate application of the READ Model: cerebral palsy and autism spectrum disorder. The READ Model applies the four central principles of evidence-based practice and can be applied across multiple rehabilitation settings.

Global health workforce research: Comparative analyses of the scientific publication trends in PubMed

AIM

To analyse the amount of Human Resources for Health (HRH) research publication trends [1990-2019], compared to the broader health policy, systems, and services research (HPSSR).

METHODS

PubMed and its indexation system with Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are used for this time-trend study. Searches combine MeSH terms for research publications and HPSSR or HRH subjects, except education. Sub-group searches are conducted on: funding support, and high- versus low- and middle-income countries (HICs vs. LMICs). Linear regressions are used for the analysis.

RESULTS

HRH research publications rose exponentially (r²  = 0.94; p < 0.001) from 129 yearly publications in 1990, to 867 in 2018. Yet, HRH research publications had a logarithmic decrease (p < 0.001) in percentage of broader HPSSR publications, from 2.5% to 1.5% [1990-2018]. Funding support increased significantly and linearly (p < 0.001 r²  = 0.88), up to 44% in 2018. The percentage of HRH research publications addressing LMICs grew linearly (p < 0.001; r²  = 0.75), up to 23% in 2018.

CONCLUSION

HRH research publications in the PubMed database increased especially in the more recent years but did not outpace (in earlier times was outpaced) by the growth of HPSSR publications overall. Yearly, HICs still accounted for more than three-quarters of HRH research. These findings can inform global and health research policies.

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: From the Birth of a Specialty to Its Recognition

Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (PMR) was subordinate to different specialties. Currently, it is recognized as essential to improving healthcare. How did it originate and which events impacted it? Different events have impacted the development of PMR including war, epidemic, sport, natural disasters, and the demographic and sociocultural characteristics of each country. At present, PMR is experiencing some difficulties throughout the world; we present proposals to improve its position to bring the specialty up to the specialty podium. Accidentology, sports events, and natural disasters enrich medicine in general and PRM in particular. Indeed, all these events create disability through a participatory and integrative strategy of the patients; PMR always takes up the challenge.

Publication Trends in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation in Japan from 2001 to 2019

Objectives

The aim of this study was to examine, using PubMed, the number of articles in the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation medicine originating in Japan, especially those containing high-quality scientific evidence (randomized controlled trials [RCTs], systematic reviews, meta-analyses) and those published in high impact factor journals.

Methods

We searched the PubMed database to identify articles, RCTs, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses from Japan covering physical medicine and rehabilitation published between 2001 and 2019; we then calculated the proportion of articles from Japan. Additionally, using Journal Citation Reports, we selected the top ten highest impact factor journals on "Rehabilitation" each year between 2001 and 2019. For each year, we searched PubMed for the total number of articles in these top ten journals and for articles originating in Japan. The Cochran-Armitage test was used to evaluate the change in the proportion of publications from Japan over time.

Results

The proportion of articles on physical medicine and rehabilitation originating in Japan increased from 2001 to 2019 (P<0.0001). An increase in the percentages of systematic reviews (P=0.046) and meta-analyses (P=0.0013) originating in Japan and a decrease in the percentage of original articles published in the top ten highest impact factor journals were demonstrated (P=0.002). However, there was no change in the percentage of RCTs from Japan over time (P=0.055).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that the proportion of articles from Japan containing high-quality scientific evidence is increasing. However, there is a need to expand the support system for research while considering the quality of research.

Methodological Issues in Rehabilitation Research: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify, synthesize, and categorize the methodological issues faced by the rehabilitation field.

DATA SOURCES

A scoping review was conducted using studies identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Google Scholar up to August 2018.

STUDY SELECTION

We included all type of publications describing methodological issues in rehabilitation research where rehabilitation is described as a multimodal process. The methodological issues have been categorized and classified.

DATA EXTRACTION

The synthesis included qualitative and quantitative analysis. To focus the attention on rehabilitation, we post hoc divided in "specific issues" (highly related to, even if not exclusive of, rehabilitation research) and "generic issues" (common in biomedical research).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Seventy-one publications were included: 68% were narrative reviews, 15% systematic reviews, 7% editorials, 4% meta-epidemiologic studies, and 5% others. Specific methodological issues include the following: problematic application of randomized controlled trials (32%), absent definition of core outcome sets (28%), poor interventions description (22%), weak methodological (conducting) and reporting quality (21%), scarce clinical practice applicability (14%), lack of blinding assessor (10%), inadequate randomization methods or inadequate allocation concealment (8%), and inadequate participants description and recruitment (8%). "Generic" issues included the following: data and statistical description (31%), authors' methodological training (7%), peer review process (6%, n=4), funding declaration (6%), ethical statement (3%), protocol registration (3%), and conflict of interest declaration (1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Methodological and reporting issues might influence the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The next steps to move forward in the field of rehabilitation could be to evaluate the influence of all these issues on the validity of trial results through meta-epidemiologic studies and to develop specific checklists to provide guidance to authors to improve the reporting and conduct of trials in this field.

"Rehabilitation Research Framework for Patients With COVID-19" Defined by Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization Rehabilitation Programme

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic resulted in a surge of research activity. Since its outset, efforts have been made to guide the rapid generation of research in medicine. There are gaps in some areas of rehabilitation research for patients with COVID-19. The development of a specific research framework might serve to help monitor the status of research (mapping), shape and strengthen research by pointing to under-investigated areas, and promote rehabilitation research in this context. This article introduces and discusses the COVID-19 Rehabilitation Research Framework (CRRF) and presents the methodology used for its development. The questions have been developed among the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation Programme, Cochrane Rehabilitation, and the experts of its Rehabilitation-COVID-19 Evidence-based Response Action International Multiprofessional Steering Committee. The framework is divided into 2 parts and includes 20 questions organized in 4 groups: epidemiology, and evidence at the micro- (individual), meso- (health services), and macro- (health systems) levels. The CRRF offers a comprehensive view of the research areas relevant to COVID-19 and rehabilitation that are necessary to inform best practice and ensure rehabilitation services and health systems can best serve the population with COVID-19. The collaboration between Cochrane Rehabilitation and the WHO Rehabilitation Programme in establishing the CRRF brought together perspectives from the health systems, health management, and clinical evidence. The authors encourage researchers to use the CRRF when planning studies on rehabilitation in the context of COVID-19.

Does Type of Sponsorship of Randomized Controlled Trials Influence Treatment Effect Size Estimates in Rehabilitation: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND

Sponsorship bias could affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. The extent to which sponsorship bias affect results in the field of physical therapy has been unexplored in the literature. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy area.

METHODS

This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of randomized controlled trials included in meta-analyses of physical therapy area were identified. Data extraction including assessments of appropriate influence of funders was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to sponsorship biases and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach.

RESULTS

We analyzed 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses. The most common sources of sponsorship for this sample of physical therapy trials were government (n = 205, 52%), followed by academic (n = 44, 11%) and industry (n = 39, 10%). The funding was not declared in a high percentage of the trials (n = 85, 22%). The influence of the trial sponsor was assessed as being appropriate in 246 trials (63%) and considered inappropriate/unclear in 147 (37%) of them. We have moderate evidence to say that trials with inappropriate/unclear influence of funders tended to have on average a larger effect size than those with appropriate influence of funding (effect size = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = -0.03 to 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our sample of physical therapy trials, it seems that most of the trials are funded by either government and academia and a small percentage are funded by the industry. Treatment effect size estimates were on average 0.15 larger in trials with lack of appropriate influence of funders as compared with trials with appropriate influence of funding. Contrarily to other fields, industry funding was relatively small and their influence perhaps less marked. All these results could be explained by the relative youth of the field and/or the absence of clear industry interests. In front of the call for action by the World Health Organization to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems, these results raise the issue of the need of public funding in the field.

The Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist: Methodology of Development of a Reporting Guideline Specific to Rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

One of the goals of Cochrane Rehabilitation is to strengthen methodology relevant to evidence-based clinical practice. Toward this goal, several research activities have been performed in rehabilitation literature: a scoping review listed the methodological issues in research, a study showed the low clinical replicability of randomized controlled trials, two systematic reviews showed the relevant items in reporting guidelines, and a series of articles discussed main methodological issues as a result of the first Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting (Paris 2018). The need to improve the quality of conduct and reporting of research studies in rehabilitation emerged as a relevant task. The aim of this article is to present the Randomized Controlled Trial Rehabilitation Checklists (RCTRACK) project to produce a specific reporting guideline in rehabilitation.

METHODS

The project followed a combination of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and EQUATOR Network methodologies. The project includes five phases. The first is kick-off, first consensus meeting and executive and advisory committee identification. The second is literature search and synthesis, where eight working groups will produce knowledge synthesis products (systematic or scoping reviews) to compile items relevant to reporting of randomized controlled trials in rehabilitation. The topics will be as follows: patient selection; blinding; treatment group; control group and co-interventions; attrition, follow-up, and protocol deviation; outcomes; statistical analysis and appropriate randomization; and research questions. The third is guidelines development, which means drafting of a document with the guidelines through a consensus meeting. The fourth is Delphi process consensus, a Delphi study involving all the rehabilitation research and methodological community. The fifth is final consensus meeting and publication.

CONCLUSIONS

The RCTRACK will be an important contribution to the rehabilitation field and will impact several groups of rehabilitation stakeholders worldwide. The main goal is to improve the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The RCTRACK also wants to improve the recognition and understanding of rehabilitation within Cochrane and the scientific and medical community at large.

Scoping Review on Rehabilitation Scoping Reviews

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, scope, and methodological quality of rehabilitation scoping reviews.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive list of scoping reviews conducted in the broader health field (inception to July 2014), with a further update of that list (up to February 2017) using similar methods, including searching 9 electronic databases.

STUDY SELECTION

Articles were included if they were scoping reviews within rehabilitation. Established review methods were used including (1) a PubMed filter detecting rehabilitation content and (2) title-and-abstract screening by 2 independent reviewers applied sequentially to articles from the existing list of scoping reviews and to the updated search results. Full-text articles were reviewed by 1 reviewer, with discrepancies resolved by another after pilot screening with > 80% agreement. Remaining discrepancies were resolved by external experts.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers used piloted and standardized data extraction forms.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We screened 1823 records, including 992 full texts, to identify 251 rehabilitation-related scoping reviews. Rehabilitation scoping reviews had an exponential yearly increase since 2008 (r²=0.89; P<.01). The literature addressed diverse topics (eg, spread over 43 condition groupings); 43% were published in Canada. Examples of methodological limitations included: 39% of reviews did not cite the use of a methodological framework, 96% did not include the appropriate flow diagram, 8% did not report eligibility criteria, and 57% did not report data extraction details.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing popularity of scoping reviews in rehabilitation has not been met by high standards in methodological quality. To increase the value of rehabilitation scoping reviews, rehabilitation stakeholders need to use existing methodological standards for the conduct, reporting, and appraisal of scoping reviews.

The Effectiveness of Actively Induced Medical Rehabilitation in Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Disease

BACKGROUND

The poor evidence base is a major problem for the German rehabilitation sector. This trial focused on testing the efficacy and benefit of inpatient medical rehabilitation compared to routine care in a single common entity, namely, chronic inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).

METHODS

This pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design included gainfully employed patients with IBD who were covered by one of four statutory health insurance providers. Patients in the intervention group were actively advised regarding options for rehabilitation and given support in applying for it; patients in the control group continued with the care they had been receiving before participation in the trial. The primary endpoint was social participation, and there were various secondary endpoints, including disease activity and sick days taken off from work. All parameters were assessed by questionnaire at the beginning of the trial and twelve months later. This was trial no. DRKS00009912 in the German clinical trials registry.

RESULTS

In a complete case analysis, the intervention group (211 patients, of whom 112 underwent rehabilitation) did better than the control group (220 patients, of whom 15 underwent rehabilitation) in multiple respects. The reported limitation in social participation was reduced by 7.3 points in the intervention group and 2.9 points in the control group (p = 0.018; d = 0.23). Significant improvements were also seen in disease activity, vitality, health-related quality of life, and self-management, with effect sizes between 0.3 and 0.4. No benefit was seen in outcomes related to working capacity. Sensitivity analyses lent further support to the findings.

CONCLUSION

Rehabilitation research can be conducted with individually randomized, controlled trials. The findings of this trial indicate the absolute effectiveness of ied rehabilitation for IBD patients, as well as its additional benefit compared to routine care.

The Cochrane Corners by Cochrane Rehabilitation

Cochrane Rehabilitation (CR) is pursuing the goal of disseminating Cochrane evidence, in line with the Cochrane Knowledge Translation (KT) strategy theme 2: "Packaging, push, and support implementation", through several projects: the CR eBook project, blogshots, and Cochrane Corners. A Cochrane Corner is a KT vehicle in which the contents of the Cochrane Library are summarized and presented by a rehabilitation professional, using the qualitative statements proposed by Cochrane Norway to communicate the magnitude of rehabilitation intervention effects on specific outcomes, based on the certainty of evidence, and followed by a section on "clinical implication for rehabilitation professionals" (both for clinical and research practice). Our Cochrane Corners aim to inform about evidence produced by Cochrane in the field of rehabilitation from a rehabilitation professional perspective. After setting internal rules for Cochrane Corners, designing a template and preparing a guide for authors, the production of Cochrane Corners started. As of December 2019, CR signed Publication Agreements with 13 rehabilitation relevant Journals, contributed to Editorials as introductory articles for the launch of Cochrane Corners in some of these Journals and published 34 Cochrane Corners, in print or ahead of print, whereas 7 additional Cochrane Corners have been submitted to the Journals and will be published soon. This initiative provided a significant opportunity for CR to communicate with members of other groups within Cochrane as well as with journal editors. The impact of Cochrane Corners on the readers will need to be evaluated in the future: unfortunately, we have no instruments to measure it at present.

Development of the Rehabilitation Health Policy, Systems, and Services Research field: Quantitative Analyses of Publications over Time (1990-2017) and across Country Type

BACKGROUND

Health policy, systems and services research (HPSSR) is increasingly needed to enable better access to, and value of, rehabilitation services worldwide. We aim to quantify the growth of Rehabilitation HPSSR publications since 1990, compared to that of overall rehabilitation research and overall HPSSR.

METHODS

Quantitative, comparative analysis of publication trends using the PubMed database and its indexation system. Comprehensive search filters, based on Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), were built and calibrated to locate research articles with content on HPSSR and rehabilitation of physical impairments. Additional filters were used for locating research publications declaring funding support, publications in rehabilitation journals, and finally publications focused on high-income (HICs) or low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The same approach was used for retrieving data on comparator fields-overall HPSSR and overall rehabilitation research. Linear regressions, with ANOVA, were used for analyzing yearly publication growths over the 28-year time frame.

RESULTS

Rehabilitation HPSSR publications in PubMed have grown significantly from 1990 to 2017 in the percentage of all rehabilitation research (from 11% to 18%) and all HPSSR (from 2.8% to 3.9%; both p < 0.001). The rate of Rehabilitation HPSSR published in rehabilitation journals did not change significantly over time (p = 0.47). The rates of publications with declared funding support increased significantly, but such growth did not differ significantly from that of the comparator fields. Finally, LMICs accounted for 9.3% of the country-focused rehabilitation HPSSR since 1990, but this percentage value increased significantly (p < 0.001) from 6% in 1990 to 13% in 2017.

CONCLUSION

Rehabilitation HPSSR publications, i.e., those indexed in PubMed with related MeSH terms, have grown in both absolute and relative values. Rehabilitation HPSSR publications focused on LMICs also grew significantly since 1990, but still remained a tiny portion of the Rehabilitation HPSSR publications with country-specific MeSH terms.