BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many clinical trials are reported without reference to the existing relevant high-quality research. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which authors of reports of clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions try to use high-quality clinical research to (1) help justify the need for the trial in the introduction and (2) help interpret the trial's results in the discussion.
METHODS: Data were extracted from 221 clinical trials that were randomly selected from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database: 70 published in 2001 (10% sample) and 151 published in 2015 (10% sample). The Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (which rates methodological quality and completeness of reporting) for each trial was also downloaded.
RESULTS: Overall 41% of trial reports cited a systematic review or the results of a search for other evidence in the introduction section: 20% for 2001 and 50% for 2015 (relative risk = 2.3, 95% confidence interval = 1.5-3.8). For the discussion section, only 1 of 221 trials integrated the results of the trial into an existing meta-analysis, but citation of a relevant systematic review did increase from 17% in 2001 to 34% in 2015. There was no relationship between citation of existing research and the total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score.
CONCLUSION: Published reports of clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions increasingly cite a systematic review or the results of a search for other evidence in the introduction, but integration with existing research in the discussion section is very rare. To encourage the use of existing research, stronger recommendations to refer to existing systematic reviews (where available) could be incorporated into reporting checklists and journal editorial guidelines.
BT - Clin Trials C1 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28747106?dopt=Abstract DA - 182773944111 DO - 10.1177/1740774517699821 IS - 4 J2 - Clin Trials LA - eng N2 -BACKGROUND/AIMS: Many clinical trials are reported without reference to the existing relevant high-quality research. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which authors of reports of clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions try to use high-quality clinical research to (1) help justify the need for the trial in the introduction and (2) help interpret the trial's results in the discussion.
METHODS: Data were extracted from 221 clinical trials that were randomly selected from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database: 70 published in 2001 (10% sample) and 151 published in 2015 (10% sample). The Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (which rates methodological quality and completeness of reporting) for each trial was also downloaded.
RESULTS: Overall 41% of trial reports cited a systematic review or the results of a search for other evidence in the introduction section: 20% for 2001 and 50% for 2015 (relative risk = 2.3, 95% confidence interval = 1.5-3.8). For the discussion section, only 1 of 221 trials integrated the results of the trial into an existing meta-analysis, but citation of a relevant systematic review did increase from 17% in 2001 to 34% in 2015. There was no relationship between citation of existing research and the total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score.
CONCLUSION: Published reports of clinical trials of physiotherapy interventions increasingly cite a systematic review or the results of a search for other evidence in the introduction, but integration with existing research in the discussion section is very rare. To encourage the use of existing research, stronger recommendations to refer to existing systematic reviews (where available) could be incorporated into reporting checklists and journal editorial guidelines.
PY - 2017 SP - 372 EP - 380 T2 - Clin Trials TI - Citation of prior research has increased in introduction and discussion sections with time: A survey of clinical trials in physiotherapy. VL - 14 SN - 1740-7753 ER -