- Framework of problems / Transparent
- No registered or published protocol
- 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 |