Search

BACKGROUND: Mechanical insufflation-exsufflation (MI-E) is a cough augmentation technique used to support people with an ineffective cough. MI-E can be complex due to the number of different pressure, flow, and temporal setting adjustments needed to optimize cough efficacy. Many clinicians identify inadequate training, limited experience, and low confidence as barriers to MI-E use. The purpose of this study was to determine if an online education course could improve confidence and competence in the delivery of MI-E. METHODS: An e-mail invitation to participate was disseminated to physiotherapists with a caseload that involved airway clearance for adults. The exclusion criteria were self-reported confidence and clinical expertise in MI-E. The education was created by physiotherapists with extensive experience in the provision of MI-E. The education material reviewed theoretical and practical components and was designed to take 6 h to complete. Physiotherapists were randomized to either the intervention group, who had 3 weeks of access to the education or the control group who received no intervention. Respondents in both groups completed a baseline and a post-intervention questionnaire by using visual analog scales, 0 to 10, with the primary outcomes being confidence in the prescription and confidence in the application of MI-E. Ten multiple-choice questions that covered key components of MI-E fundamentals were also completed at baseline and post-intervention. RESULTS: The intervention group had a significant improvement in the visual analog scale after the education period with a between-group difference of mean 3.6 (95% CI 4.5 to 2.7) for prescription confidence and mean 2.9 (95% CI 3.9 to 1.9) for application confidence. There was also an improvement in the multiple-choice questions with a between-group difference of mean 3.2 (95% CI 4.3 to 2). CONCLUSIONS: Access to an evidence-based online education course improved confidence in the prescription and application of MI-E, and may be a valuable tool for training clinicians in the application of MI-E. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Language is a barrier to implementing research evidence into practice. • Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) content is available in 13 languages. • English, Portuguese, Spanish, German, and French PEDro content is used the most. • Region-specific promotion of the underused PEDro content may facilitate global usage. • Awareness and collaboration between stakeholders could reduce the language barrier. Language is a barrier to implementing research evidence into practice. Whilst the majority of the world's population speak languages other than English, English has become the dominant language of publication for research in healthcare. The aim of this study was to quantify the usage of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) web-site (www.pedro.org.au) and training videos by language, including the use of online translation, and to calculate relative usage of the different sections of the web-site. Google Analytics was used to track usage of the PEDro web-site for July 2017 to June 2018. The number of views of each of the PEDro training videos was downloaded from YouTube for January 2015 to August 2018. The pageviews and videos were categorized by language and, for pageviews, web-site section. 2,828,422 pageviews were included in the analyses. The English-language sections had the largest number of pageviews (58.61%), followed by Portuguese (15.57%), and Spanish (12.02%). Users applied online translation tools to translate selected content of the PEDro web-site into 41 languages. The PEDro training videos had been viewed 78,150 times. The three most commonly viewed languages were English (58.80%), Portuguese (19.83%), and Spanish (6.13%). There was substantial use of some of the translated versions of the resources offered by PEDro. Future efforts could focus on region-specific promotion of the language resources that are underutilized in PEDro. The developers of PEDro and PEDro users can work collaboratively to facilitate uptake and translate resources into languages other than English to reduce the language barrier in using research to guide practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Less than one-third of physical therapy trials reported confidence intervals. • The prevalence observed is lower than equivalent analyses in other disciplines. • Analysis showed consistent increases in the proportion of trials that used confidence intervals with time. To assess the prevalence of the use of 95% confidence intervals in the reporting of between-group differences in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions and to determine if the prevalence is changing over time. Observational study, including an analysis of 200 trials from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database: 50 from each of the years 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016. The primary outcome used was the prevalence of the between-group difference presented with 95% confidence intervals. We also extracted trial characteristics for descriptive purposes (i.e., number of participants, number of sites involved in recruitment, country(ies) of data collection, funding, subdiscipline of physical therapy, publication language and total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score). Most commonly, the trials were published in English (89%) and classified in the musculoskeletal subdiscipline (23%). The overall prevalence of use of confidence intervals was 29% and there was a consistent increase in reporting between 1986 and 2016, with peak usage in the 2016 cohort (42%). Confidence intervals were more likely to be used in trials that had received funding, were conducted in Europe and Oceania, and in trials with a Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of at least 6/10. Most trials of physical therapy interventions do not report confidence intervals around between-group differences. However, use of confidence intervals is increasing steadily, especially among high-quality trials. Physical therapists must understand confidence intervals so that they can understand a growing number of trials in physical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Systematic reviews provide the best evidence about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. Although systematic reviews are conducted with explicit and transparent methods, discrepancies might occur between the protocol and the publication. Objectives To estimate the proportion of systematic reviews of physical therapy interventions that are registered, the methodological quality of (un)registered systematic reviews and the prevalence of outcome reporting bias in registered systematic reviews. Methods A random sample of 150 systematic reviews published in 2015 indexed on the PEDro database. We included systematic reviews written in English, Italian, Portuguese and Spanish. A checklist for assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews tool was used. Relative risk was calculated to explore the association between meta-analysis results and the changes in the outcomes. Results Twenty-nine (19%) 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 (median = 8) than unregistered systematic reviews (median = 5). Nine (31%) registered systematic reviews demonstrated discrepancies between protocol and publication with no evidence that such discrepancies were applied to favor the statistical significance of the intervention (RR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.63–2.12). Conclusion A low proportion of systematic reviews in the physical therapy field are registered. The registered systematic reviews showed high methodological quality without evidence of outcome reporting bias. Further strategies should be implemented to encourage registration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which examines the effectiveness of preoperative inspiratory muscle training in reducing length of hospital stay and preventing postoperative pulmonary complications in people undergoing cardiothoracic or upper abdominal surgery. Preoperative inspiratory muscle training was compared with sham or no inspiratory muscle training through a systematic review and a meta analysis. The results of study were discussed.

Purpose: The quality of reports of randomized trials of physiotherapy interventions varies by year of publication, language of publication and whether the intervention being assessed is a type of electrotherapy. Whether it also varies by subdiscipline of physiotherapy has not yet been systematically investigated. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the quality of trial reports varies according to the subdiscipline of physiotherapy being evaluated. Methods: Reports of physiotherapy trials were identified using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Quality of the trial report was evaluated using the PEDro scale (total PEDro score and 11 individual PEDro scale items). Multiple linear and logistic regressions were used to predict the quality of trial reports, with subdisciplines, time since publication, language of publication, and evaluation of electrotherapy as independent variables in the model. Results: Total PEDro scores are higher when trial reports are more recent; are published in English; investigate electrotherapy; and are in the subdisciplines of musculoskeletal, neurology, cardiopulmonary, gerontology, continence and women's health, orthopaedics, or paediatrics. Trials in the subdisciplines of ergonomics and occupational health, oncology, and sports are associated with lower total PEDro scores. The musculoskeletal subdiscipline had a positive association with six of the PEDro scale items, more than any other subdiscipline. Conclusions: There is scope to improve the quality of the conduct and reporting of randomized trials across all the physiotherapy subdisciplines. This study provides specific information about how each physiotherapy subdiscipline can improve trial quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: While the number of reports of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy has increased substantially in the last decades, the quality and reporting of randomized trials have never been systematically investigated in the subdiscipline of cardiothoracic physical therapy. The primary aim was to determine the methodological quality and completeness of reporting of cardiothoracic physical therapy trials. Secondary aims were to investigate the range of clinical conditions investigated in these trials and the degree of association between trial characteristics and quality. METHODS: All reports of randomized trials indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and coded as being relevant to cardiothoracic physical therapy were surveyed. PEDro scale individual items and total score were downloaded, and some characteristics included in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement were extracted for each trial report. RESULTS: The mean ± SD total PEDro score for the 2,970 included reports of cardiothoracic trials was 4.7 ± 1.4, with 27% being of moderate to high quality. The clinical conditions studied included chronic lung diseases (32% of the trials), cardiac diseases (20%), cardiovascular surgical conditions (5%), sleep disorders (5%), peripheral vascular disease (4%), acute lung disease (4%), critical illness (3%), and other surgical conditions (3%). The multivariate linear regression analysis revealed that endorsement of the CONSORT statement by the publishing journal, time since publication, evidence of trial registration, sources of funding, description of the sample size calculation, and identification of the primary outcome(s) had associations with the total PEDro score. CONCLUSIONS: There is great potential to improve the quality of the conduct and reporting of trials evaluating the effects of cardiothoracic physical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Clinical trial registration has several putative benefits: prevention of selective reporting, avoidance of duplication, encouragement of participation, and facilitation of reviews. Previous surveys suggest that most trials are registered. However, these surveys examined only trials in journals with high impact factors, which may bias the results. Purpose. This study examined the completeness of clinical trial registration and the extent of selective reporting of outcomes in a random sample of published randomized trials in physical therapy. Data Sources. This was a retrospective cohort study in which 200 randomized trials of physical therapy interventions were randomly selected from those published in 2009 and indexed in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), regardless of the publishing journal. Data Extraction. Evidence of registration was sought for each trial in the study, on clinical trial registers, and by contacting authors. Data Synthesis. The proportion of randomized trials that were registered was 67/200 (34%). This proportion was significantly lower than among the trials in journals with high impact factors, where the proportion was 75% (odds ratio_7.4, 95% confidence interval_2.6 -21.4). Unambiguous primary outcomes (ie, method and time points of measurement clearly defined in the trial registry entry) were registered for 32 trials, and registration was adequate (ie, prospective with unambiguous primary outcomes) for 5/200 (2.5%) trials. Selective outcome reporting occurred in 23 (47%) of the 49 trials in which selective reporting was assessable. Limitations. The inclusion of only English-language trials prevents generalization of the results to non-English-language trials. Conclusions. Registration of randomized trials of physical therapy interventions is rarely adequate. Consequently, the putative benefits of registration are not being fully realized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Full-text access is essential for evidence-based practice. • Free full text is available for 51% (95% CI: 44, 58) of articles in PEDro. • PEDro provides 4% better access (95% CI: 1, 7) to free full text than PubMed. • Free full-text access via PEDro did not change with year or location. • A PDF locator website increased access to free full text by 9% (95% CI: 6, 14). Access to full-text articles is an essential element of evidence-based practice. Estimate the percentage of articles in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) that have free full-text access and compare free access between PEDro and PubMed. Secondary objectives for access via PEDro: determine if publication year and geographic location impact on free access; determine if adding a link to a portable document format (PDF) locator website would improve free access; and evaluate the association between article characteristics and free access. This observational study used a random sample of 200 articles published in 2000–2019 and indexed in PEDro. Data collectors in Australia, Brazil, Nepal, and Spain attempted to access free full text for each article via PEDro. One data collector attempted to access free full text via PubMed. One data collector attempted to access full text via a PDF locator (http://www.pdfsearchengine.net/). The percentage (95% confidence interval [CI]) of articles with free full-text access from PEDro, PubMed, and the PDF locator website were calculated. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between free full-text access and article characteristics. Free full text could be accessed via PEDro for 51% of the articles (95% CI: 44, 58). PEDro had 4% higher free access than PubMed (95% CI: 1, 7). Access via PEDro did not vary systematically with time, geographic location, or article characteristics. Access improved by 9% (95% CI: 6, 14) by adding a PDF locator website. PEDro is a good source of free full-text articles for physical therapists and other rehabilitation professionals. Evidence resources, professional organisations, employers, researchers, and research agencies could all help to increase access to free full text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]