Has Reporting on Physical Therapy Interventions Improved in 2 Decades? An Analysis of 140 Trials Reporting on 225 Interventions

Physiotherapy assessment and treatment of patients with tibial external fixator: a systematic scoping review

PURPOSE

To map evidence regarding physiotherapy assessment and treatment of patients with tibial external fixator (EF), and to point out literature gaps for further research.

METHODS

Systematic scoping review conducted in four databases. We included both experimental and non-experimental studies involving patients with tibial EF and outcomes of interest. We recorded study design, population, sample size, sample age, reason for EF use, type of surgery, type of EF used, instruments used for assessing function, pain, quality of life, satisfaction, psychosocial aspects, and physiotherapy treatment descriptions from included studies. We categorised data accordingly to outcomes assessed and physiotherapy treatments description.

RESULTS

Eighty-six studies were included involving 3070 patients. Causes of fixator use were traumatic conditions, acquired and congenital deformities, and non-traumatic conditions, like compartmental osteoarthritis. Function was assessed in about three-quarters of included studies, though other outcomes were not presented in most studies. Only one study described satisfactorily the physiotherapy treatment. Almost half of the studies did not provide any description of the rehabilitation process.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence about the assessment of function, pain, quality of life, satisfaction, psychosocial aspects, and other outcomes in tibial EF patients. Physiotherapy treatment in these patients is poorly reported.Protocol registration: Open Science Framework: doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/UT2DA.

The Impact of Exercise Prescription Variables on Intervention Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Pain: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal pain conditions are the largest contributors to disability and healthcare burden globally. Exercise interventions improve physical function and quality of life in individuals with musculoskeletal pain, yet optimal exercise prescription variables (e.g. duration, frequency, intensity) are unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to examine evidence gaps, methodological quality and exercise prescription recommendations in systematic reviews of exercise for musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

In our prospectively registered umbrella review, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 14 February 2023. Backward citation tracking was performed. We included peer-reviewed, English language, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared exercise with conservative treatment, placebo or other exercise interventions in adults with musculoskeletal pain. Data were extracted from the following groups of reviews based on their reporting of exercise prescription data and analysis of the relationship between prescription variables and outcomes: (1) those that did not report any exercise prescription data, (2) those that reported exercise prescription data but did not perform a quantitative analysis and (3) those that performed a quantitative analysis of the relationship between exercise prescription variables and outcomes. Outcome measures were physical function, pain, mental health, adverse effects and adherence to treatment. AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) was used to assess methodological quality.

RESULTS

From 6757 records, 274 systematic reviews were included. 6.6% of reviews did not report any exercise prescription data, and only 10.9% quantitatively analyzed the relationship between prescription variables and the outcome(s). The overall methodological quality was critically low in 85% of reviews.

CONCLUSION

High methodological quality evidence is lacking for optimal exercise training prescription variables in individuals with musculoskeletal pain. To better inform practice and evidence gaps, future systematic reviews should (1) identify optimum exercise prescription variables, for example, via dose-response (network) meta-analysis, (2) perform high-quality reviews per AMSTAR-2 criteria and (3) include outcomes of mental health, adverse events and exercise adherence.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021287440 ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021287440 ).

Description of massage interventions in randomised clinical trials for neck pain; a review using the TIDieR checklist

OBJECTIVE

How interventions are reported can impact the ability to implement these intervention in clinical practice. Therefore, our aim is to assess the reporting of massage interventions in randomised controlled trials for patients with neck pain.

DATA SOURCES

This manuscript concerns a secondary analysis of trials evaluating massage for neck pain selected for a scoping review. An updated literature search was completed using four databases to 31 July 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

Trials were selected that evaluate massage interventions. Two independent assessors extracted descriptive information, methodological quality (PEDro-scale) and assessed completeness of reporting of the intervention using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDier-checklist). We present frequencies of the extracted data.

RESULTS

We included 35 trials (2840 patients) with neck pain. Most trials (n = 23) included patients with chronic non-specific neck pain. We found a wide variety of massage interventions from Chinese massage, Swedish massage to myofascial release. In addition, the dose, number of sessions and the duration of the intervention varied widely. The methodological quality overall was fair to good (varied between 4-8/10), and we found a moderate completeness of reporting. All trials provided the name of the intervention, 30 (86%) provided a rationale and 26 (74%) trials described details of the massage intervention.

CONCLUSION

The massage interventions were moderately described in trials in patients with neck pain, but provided enough information to guide the decision making for designing future Network Meta-analysis as to what trials need to be considered when grouping massage interventions in a clinically relevant way.

Assessment of description and implementation fidelity of clinical trials involving exercise-based treatment in individuals with rotator cuff tears: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

For evidence-based practice, clinicians and researchers can rely on well-conducted randomized clinical trials that exhibit good methodological quality, provide adequate intervention descriptions, and implementation fidelity.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the description and implementation fidelity of exercise-based interventions in clinical trials for individuals with rotator cuff tears.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SCOPUS and SciELO. Randomized clinical trials that assessed individuals with rotator cuff tears confirmed by imaging exam were included. All individuals must have received an exercise-based treatment. The methodological quality was scored with the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. The Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIHBCC) were used to assess intervention description and implementation fidelity, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies were included. Despite their adequate methodological quality, the description of the intervention was poor with TIDieR scores ranging from 6 to 15 out of 24 total points. The TIDieR highest-scoring item was item 1 (brief name) that was reported in all studies. Considering fidelity, only one of the five domains of NIHBCC (i.e., treatment design) reached just over 50%.

CONCLUSION

Exercise-based interventions used in studies for individuals with rotator cuff tears are poorly reported. The description and fidelity of the intervention need to be better reported to assist clinical decision-making and support evidence-based practice.

Elements of exercise prescription in Randomised controlled trials of musculoskeletal rehabilitation in a one-on-one setting. A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are used by clinicians to inform evidence-based practice including when providing exercise programs. They should sufficiently report exercise interventions to permit accurate replication and incorporation into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this scoping review was to describe the elements used within the exercise prescription process for musculoskeletal rehabilitation in a one-on-one setting reported in RCTs including their methods and prescription in intervention or control groups.

METHODS

The databases CINHAL, COCHRANE, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PUBMED were searched using a predefined strategy. Articles were reviewed according to detailed inclusion/exclusion criteria which included whether they were RCTs prescribing exercises for musculoskeletal rehabilitation in a one-on-one setting published within the last 5 years. For studies retained following screening, data extracted included year of publication, musculoskeletal condition and interventions studied. A pre-determined checklist ascertained the elements of the exercise prescription process reported in each study. Data obtained were analysed descriptively and summarised.

RESULTS

After screening, 153 studies were retained for data extraction. The two most reported items included 'specific dosages provided' (75%, n = 115), and 'observe the patient performing the exercises' (71%. n = 108). Over half of studies reported basing their exercise intervention on existing evidence-based protocols (61%, n = 93). Elements considering biomechanical principles were the most 'unclear'. Most of the checklist items received an 'unclear' score due to inadequate descriptions of interventions.

CONCLUSION

Many RCTs under report the development and prescription of exercise interventions, limiting replication of findings in clinical practice. A comprehensive framework is needed to ensure exercise prescription is adequately reported.

Completeness of intervention reporting in randomised trials of technology-enabled remote or hybrid exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review using the TIDieR framework

BACKGROUND

Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation improves clinical outcomes and quality of life. Technology-enabled delivery of remote cardiac rehabilitation is as effective in improving health outcomes as in-person delivery and has the potential to transform clinical service delivery. However, for the successful translation of research to clinical practice, interventions must be adequately reported in the literature.

METHODS

Systematic review of MedLine, CINAHL, PubMed and SPORT Discus databases applying PRISMA guidance. Randomised controlled trials of remote or hybrid technology-enabled exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation interventions were included. Completeness of reporting was evaluated against the TIDieR checklist.

RESULTS

The search strategy returned 162 articles which, following screening, resulted in 12 randomised trials being included containing data for 1588 participants. No trial fully reported their rehabilitation intervention as per the 12-item TIDieR checklist, with a median score of eight out of 12 categories. Notably, intervention detail, dosage and modification were comparatively poorly reported.

CONCLUSION

Technology-enabled remotely delivered cardiac rehabilitation may be effective at improving cardiovascular fitness; however, the quality of reporting of these interventions in randomised trials is insufficient for replication which has material implications for translation into clinical practice.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in prehabilitation: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inadequate study reporting precludes interpretation of findings, pooling of results in meta-analyses, and delays knowledge translation. While prehabilitation interventions aim to enhance candidacy for surgery, to our knowledge, a review of the quality of reporting in prehabilitation has yet to be conducted. Our objective was to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of prehabilitation are reported according to methodological and intervention reporting checklists.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria: RCTs of unimodal or multimodal prehabilitation interventions.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

search was conducted in March 2022 using MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane.

CHARTING METHODS

identified studies were compared to CONSORT, CERT & Modified CERT, TIDieR, PRESENT, and CONSORT-SPI. An agreement ratio (AR) was defined to evaluate if applicable guideline items were correctly reported. Data were analyzed as frequency (n, %) and mean with standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS

We identified 935 unique articles and included 70 trials published from 1994 to 2022. Most prehabilitation programs comprised exercise-only interventions (n = 40, 57%) and were applied before oncologic surgery (n = 32, 46%). The overall mean AR was 57% (SD: 20.9%). The specific mean ARs were as follows: CONSORT: 71% (SD: 16.3%); TIDieR: 62% (SD:17.7%); CERT: 54% (SD: 16.6%); Modified-CERT: 40% (SD:17.8%); PRESENT: 78% (SD: 8.9); and CONSORT-SPI: 47% (SD: 22.1).

CONCLUSION

Altogether, existing prehabilitation trials report approximately half of the checklist items recommended by methodological and intervention reporting guidelines. Reporting practices may improve with the development of a reporting checklist specific to prehabilitation interventions.

Effectiveness of therapeutic exercise for the management of cervicogenic headache: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The main aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic exercise for managing pain and disability in patients with cervicogenic headache (CEH).

METHODS

A protocol for this systematic review was published in PROSPERO (CRD42019122703). PRISMA and AMSTAR2 standards were followed. Based on an extensive systematic search in five databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, PsychInfo and SportDISCUS) and the CENTRAL trial register, two reviewers carefully and independently assessed, selected results, collected data, rated the risk of bias (RoB) of included studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, synthesized the available evidence, and rated it using GRADE methodology.

RESULTS

A total of 12 manuscripts, reporting on 11 studies were included. Most studies showed a high risk of bias (63,63%). Additionally, a great deal of heterogeneity was observed regarding interventions, comparisons, and outcomes and thus, results could not be synthesized in meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was found to be from low to very low. Significant differences with large effect sizes were found when comparing multimodal exercise vs. control groups on headache outcomes (SMD = 0.73; 95%CI [0.31, 1.14] for headache intensity and SMD = 0.98; 95%CI [0.56, 1.41], for headache frequency).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that therapeutic exercise may be effective to achieve clinically relevant reductions in headache intensity and frequency as well as disability for patients suffering from cervicogenic headache. However, more high-quality research is needed to gain confidence in this finding and possibly determine optimal types and dosage of therapeutic exercise.

Are Exercise Therapy Protocols For The Treatment of Hip-Related Pain Adequately Described? A Systematic Review of Intervention Descriptions

Background

Hip-related pain is an umbrella term encompassing pain from non-arthritic hip joint pathologies, such as femoroacetabular impingement syndrome, hip dysplasia, and labral tears. Exercise therapy is commonly recommended for these conditions, but the reporting completeness of these interventions is currently unclear.

Purpose

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the reporting completeness of exercise therapy protocols for people with hip-related pain.

Study design

Systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search was conducted, searching the MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases. The search results were independently screened by two researchers. Inclusion criteria were studies using exercise therapy in people with non-arthritic hip-related pain. Two independent researchers used the Cochrane risk of bias tool version 2 to analyze risk of bias, and the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) checklist and score (1-19) to synthesize reporting completeness.

Results

Fifty-two studies used exercise therapy for hip-related pain, but only 23 were included in the synthesis as 29 studies had no description of the intervention. CERT scores ranged from 1 to 17 (median 12, IQR 5-15). The most well-described items were tailoring (87%), and the least well-described items were motivation strategies (9%) and starting level (13%). Studies used exercise therapy alone (n=13), or in combination with hip arthroscopy (n=10).

Conclusion

Only 23 of 52 eligible studies reported sufficient details to be included in the CERT synthesis. The median CERT score was 12 (IQR 5-15), with no study reaching the maximum score of 19. Lack of reporting makes it difficult to replicate interventions in future research, and to draw conclusions on efficacy and dose-response to exercise therapy for hip-related pain.

Level of evidence

Level 1, systematic review.

Database coverage and their use in systematic reviews regarding spinal manipulative therapy: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered one of the most reliable study types. Through a systematic and thorough literature search, researchers aim to collect all research relevant to their purpose. The selection of databases can be challenging and depend on the topic of interest. The Cochrane Handbook suggests searching at least the following three databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE. However, this is not always sufficient for reviews on the musculoskeletal field in general. This study aimed to examine the frequency and choice of databases used by researchers in SRs of spinal manipulative therapy (SMT). Secondly, to analyze the RCTs included in the SRs to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient literature searches for SRs of SMT.

METHODS

SRs investigating the effect of SMT on any patient-reported outcome measure were identified through searches in PubMed and Epistemonikos (all entries till date of search February 25, 2022). For each SR, databases searched and included RCTs were collected. RCTs were searched individually in nine databases (Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, CINAHL, Web of Science, Index to Chiropractic Literature, PEDro, and AMED). Coverage rates were calculated using the number of retrieved RCTs by the database or combinations of databases divided by the total number of RCTs.

RESULTS

Eighty-five SRs published met the inclusion criteria, and 442 unique RCTs were retrieved. The most frequently searched database was MEDLINE/PubMed. Cochrane Library had the highest overall coverage rate and contained the third most unique RCTs. While a 100% retrieval was not possible, as 18 RCTs could not be retrieved in any of the nine databases, the combination of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and PEDro retrieved all possible RCTs with a combined coverage rate of 95.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

For SRs on SMT, we recommend using the combination suggested by the Cochrane Handbook of Cochrane Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and in addition, PEDro and Index to Chiropractic Literature. Google Scholar might be used additionally as a tool for searching gray literature and quality assurance.

Physiotherapists' opinions, barriers, and enablers to providing evidence-based care: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Physiotherapists deliver evidence-based guideline recommended treatments only half of the time to patients with musculoskeletal conditions. Physiotherapists' behaviour in clinical practice are influenced by many cognitive, social, and environmental factors including time and financial pressures. Many initiatives aimed at improving physiotherapists' uptake of evidence-based care have failed to appreciate the context involved in clinical decisions and clinical practice. Therefore, we aimed to describe: i) opinions toward evidence; ii) how evidence is accessed; iii) factors influencing evidence access; iv) factors influencing evidence application, for physiotherapists working in regional areas.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods study with online survey and focus groups. We included registered physiotherapists in the survey and physiotherapists practising in regional New South Wales in the focus groups. Quantitative and qualitative data were used to inform all research objectives. We used eight domains of the Transtheoretical Domains Framework to design survey questions. We analysed quantitative and qualitative data in parallel, then integrated both sources through by developing a matrix while considering the Transtheoretical Domains Framework domains to generate themes.

RESULTS

Fifty-seven physiotherapists participated in the study (survey only n = 41; focus group only n = 8; both survey and focus group n = 8). Participants reported that evidence was important, but they also considered patient expectations, colleagues' treatment choices, and business demands in clinical decision making. Physiotherapists reported they access evidence on average 30 minutes or less per week. Competing demands like business administration tasks are barriers to accessing evidence. Participants reported that patient expectations were a major barrier to applying evidence in practice. Environmental and systemic factors, like funding structures or incentives for evidence-based care, and social factors, like lacking or having a culture of accountability and mentorship, were reported as both barriers and enablers to evidence application.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides context to physiotherapists' opinion, access, and application of evidence in clinical practice. Physiotherapists' provision of evidence-based care may be improved by enhancing structural support from workplaces to access and apply evidence and exploring discrepancies between physiotherapists' perceptions of patient expectations and actual patient expectations.

Prehabilitation of elderly frail or pre-frail patients prior to elective surgery (PRAEP-GO): study protocol for a randomized, controlled, outcome assessor-blinded trial

BACKGROUND

Frailty is expressed by a reduction in physical capacity, mobility, muscle strength, and endurance. (Pre-)frailty is present in up to 42% of the older surgical population, with an increased risk for peri- and postoperative complications. Consequently, these patients often suffer from a delayed or limited recovery, loss of autonomy and quality of life, and a decrease in functional and cognitive capacities. Since frailty is modifiable, prehabilitation may improve the physiological reserves of patients and reduce the care dependency 12 months after surgery.

METHODS

Patients ≥ 70 years old scheduled for elective surgery or intervention will be recruited in this multicenter, randomized controlled study, with a target of 1400 participants with an allocation ratio of 1:1. The intervention consists of (1) a shared decision-making process with the patient, relatives, and an interdisciplinary and interprofessional team and (2) a 3-week multimodal, individualized prehabilitation program including exercise therapy, nutritional intervention, mobility or balance training, and psychosocial interventions and medical assessment. The frequency of the supervised prehabilitation is 5 times/week for 3 weeks. The primary endpoint is defined as the level of care dependency 12 months after surgery or intervention.

DISCUSSION

Prehabilitation has been proven to be effective for different populations, including colorectal, transplant, and cardiac surgery patients. In contrast, evidence for prehabilitation in older, frail patients has not been clearly established. To the best of our knowledge, this is currently the largest prehabilitation study on older people with frailty undergoing general elective surgery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04418271 . Registered on 5 June 2020. Universal Trial Number (UTN): U1111-1253-4820.

Comparison between 2000 and 2018 on the reporting of statistical significance and clinical relevance in physiotherapy clinical trials in six major physiotherapy journals: a meta-research design

DESIGN

Meta-research.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the prevalence of reporting p values, effect estimates and clinical relevance in physiotherapy randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in the years 2000 and 2018.

METHODS

We performed a meta-research study of physiotherapy RCTs obtained from six major physiotherapy peer-reviewed journals that were published in the years 2000 and 2018. We searched the databases Embase, Medline and PubMed in May 2019, and extracted data on the study characteristics and whether articles reported on statistical significance, effect estimates and confidence intervals for baseline, between-group, and within-group differences, and clinical relevance. Data were presented using descriptive statistics and inferences were made based on proportions. A 20% difference between 2000 and 2018 was regarded as a meaningful difference.

RESULTS

We found 140 RCTs: 39 were published in 2000 and 101 in 2018. Overall, there was a high prevalence (>90%) of reporting p values for the main (between-group) analysis, with no difference between years. Statistical significance testing was frequently used for evaluating baseline differences, increasing from 28% in 2000 to 61.4% in 2018. The prevalence of reporting effect estimates, CIs and the mention of clinical relevance increased from 2000 to 2018 by 26.6%, 34% and 32.8% respectively. Despite an increase in use in 2018, over 40% of RCTs failed to report effect estimates, CIs and clinical relevance of results.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of using p values remains high in physiotherapy research. Although the proportion of reporting effect estimates, CIs and clinical relevance is higher in 2018 compared to 2000, many publications still fail to report and interpret study findings in this way.