Dafne Port Nascimento1, Gabrielle Zoldan Gonzalez2, Amanda Costa Araujo2, Leonardo Oliveira Pena Costa2. 1. Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, SP, Brazil. Electronic address: dafnepn@yahoo.com.br. 2. Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo (UNICID), São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the main characteristics of low back pain randomized controlled trials on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and to rank the journals where these trials were published according to their Impact Factor. METHODS: This is a cross sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. A random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015 were selected from Physiotherapy Evidence Database in February 2016. We collected the following main characteristics of trials: 2015 journal Impact Factor; if the paper was published as open access; CONSORT recommendations endorsement by the journal; methodological quality and statistical reporting measured by the 0-10 items Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data was analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Trials were published in journals with a mean Impact Factor of 2.5 (SD 2.5), from which 55.5% endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. The methodological quality was moderate with 5.8 points (SD 1.6). The top 3 journals according to Impact Factor were: (1) British Medical Journal; (2) Annals of Internal Medicine; and (3) BMC Medicine. Only 6 out of 97 journals publishing low back pain trials combined the following factors: journal Impact Factor higher than 2.0, mean trial methodological quality higher than 6.0 points, endorse CONSORT recommendations and offering papers as open access. CONCLUSION: Clinicians interested in low back pain trials must look for a wide variety of healthcare journals. A substantial number of low back pain randomized controlled trials did not follow adequate reporting and methodological recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the main characteristics of low back pain randomized controlled trials on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and to rank the journals where these trials were published according to their Impact Factor. METHODS: This is a cross sectional study based on a collection of randomized controlled trials. A random sample of 200 low back pain trials published between 2010 and 2015 were selected from Physiotherapy Evidence Database in February 2016. We collected the following main characteristics of trials: 2015 journal Impact Factor; if the paper was published as open access; CONSORT recommendations endorsement by the journal; methodological quality and statistical reporting measured by the 0-10 items Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. Data was analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Trials were published in journals with a mean Impact Factor of 2.5 (SD 2.5), from which 55.5% endorsed the CONSORT recommendations. The methodological quality was moderate with 5.8 points (SD 1.6). The top 3 journals according to Impact Factor were: (1) British Medical Journal; (2) Annals of Internal Medicine; and (3) BMC Medicine. Only 6 out of 97 journals publishing low back pain trials combined the following factors: journal Impact Factor higher than 2.0, mean trial methodological quality higher than 6.0 points, endorse CONSORT recommendations and offering papers as open access. CONCLUSION: Clinicians interested in low back pain trials must look for a wide variety of healthcare journals. A substantial number of low back pain randomized controlled trials did not follow adequate reporting and methodological recommendations.
Authors: Amanda M Hall; Chris G Maher; Paul Lam; Manuela Ferreira; Jane Latimer Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Luciana Gazzi Macedo; Jane Latimer; Christopher G Maher; Paul W Hodges; James H McAuley; Michael K Nicholas; Lois Tonkin; Chris J Stanton; Tasha R Stanton; Ryan Stafford Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2011-12-01
Authors: Susan Armijo-Olivo; Bruno R da Costa; Greta G Cummings; Christine Ha; Jorge Fuentes; Humam Saltaji; Matthias Egger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 3.240