Amanda McIntyre1, Nerissa Campbell2, Julianne Vermeer2, Rachel Mays2, Shannon Janzen2, Robert Teasell3. 1. Lawson Health Research Institute, Parkwood Institute, London, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: Amanda.McIntyre@sjhc.london.on.ca. 2. Lawson Health Research Institute, Parkwood Institute, London, Ontario, Canada. 3. Lawson Health Research Institute, Parkwood Institute, London, Ontario, Canada; St. Joseph's Healthcare, Parkwood Institute, London, Ontario, Canada; Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the methodological quality of motor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the stroke rehabilitation literature and to examine trends in quality over time. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for all English articles (published up to December 2013) examining rehabilitation for motor recovery poststroke. All RCTs with a human sample, of which at least 50% had a stroke, were included in the analysis. A Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score was assigned to assess methodological quality. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine adherence to quality items overall and over time, with post hoc t-tests performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy-six RCTs met inclusion criteria, of which 32.0% had excellent, 42.0% good, 23.1% fair, and 3.0% poor methodological qualities. The overall mean PEDro score was 6.6 ± 1.6; with scores improving significantly between 1979-1983 and 2009-2013 (5.0 ± 1.4 versus 7.0 ± 1.5; P = .0003); however, no significant improvements in individual items were found (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed improvements in the total methodological quality of motor intervention RCTs in stroke rehabilitation over time. However, no relationship was found between individual quality items and improvement over time.
PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the methodological quality of motor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the stroke rehabilitation literature and to examine trends in quality over time. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted for all English articles (published up to December 2013) examining rehabilitation for motor recovery poststroke. All RCTs with a human sample, of which at least 50% had a stroke, were included in the analysis. A Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) score was assigned to assess methodological quality. A one-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine adherence to quality items overall and over time, with post hoc t-tests performed where appropriate. RESULTS: Six hundred seventy-six RCTs met inclusion criteria, of which 32.0% had excellent, 42.0% good, 23.1% fair, and 3.0% poor methodological qualities. The overall mean PEDro score was 6.6 ± 1.6; with scores improving significantly between 1979-1983 and 2009-2013 (5.0 ± 1.4 versus 7.0 ± 1.5; P = .0003); however, no significant improvements in individual items were found (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed improvements in the total methodological quality of motor intervention RCTs in stroke rehabilitation over time. However, no relationship was found between individual quality items and improvement over time.