A low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews

Ref ID 276
First Author C. B. Oliveira
Journal BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY
Year Of Publishing 2018
URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5993937/pdf/main.pdf
Keywords Protocols
Physiotherapy
Problem(s) No registered or published protocol
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 150
Summary of Findings 19% of the random sample of 150 systematic reviews were registered. Funding and publication in a journal with an impact factor higher than 5.0 were associated with registration. Registered systematic reviews demonstrated significantly higher methodological quality (AMSTAR median = 8) than unregistered systematic reviews (AMSTAR median = 5). Nine (31%) registered systematic reviews demonstrated discrepancies between protocol and publication with no evidence that such discrepancies were applied to favour the statistical significance of the intervention (RR = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.63---2.12).
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? No
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? No