Tiziano Innocenti1, Stefano Salvioli2, Silvia Giagio3, Daniel Feller4, Nino Cartabellotta5, Alessandro Chiarotto6. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: innocenti.fisio@gmail.com. 2. Department of Neuroscience, Rehabilitation, Ophthalmology, Genetics, Maternal and Child Health (DINOGMI), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 3. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. Provincial Agency for Health of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Trento, Italy. 5. GIMBE Foundation, Bologna, Italy. 6. Department of Health Sciences, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The main aims of this metaresearch study conducted among high-impact rehabilitation journals were: 1) to evaluate if the use of reporting guidelines (RGs) was declared and 2) to categorize the declared use as appropriate or inappropriate. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 200 studies published in the period 2010-2019 in five generic rehabilitation journals with the highest 5-year impact factor. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, and diagnostic studies were included. Prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated for the main outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 200 selected studies, 17.5% (95% CI: 12.2-22.8%) declared using RGs. Among these studies, 48.6% (95% CI: 32-65.1%) declared an appropriate use. There was an increasing trend over time for authors to report the use of RGs (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13-1.53). Systematic reviews (n = 54) reported more frequently the use of RGs than other study designs (35.2%). CONCLUSION: In high-impact rehabilitation journals, a small minority of article authors declared the use of RGs. In approximately half of these studies, RGs were used inappropriately. There is an urgent need to improve the use of RGs in this field of research.
OBJECTIVES: The main aims of this metaresearch study conducted among high-impact rehabilitation journals were: 1) to evaluate if the use of reporting guidelines (RGs) was declared and 2) to categorize the declared use as appropriate or inappropriate. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 200 studies published in the period 2010-2019 in five generic rehabilitation journals with the highest 5-year impact factor. Randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, observational studies, and diagnostic studies were included. Prevalence with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was estimated for the main outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 200 selected studies, 17.5% (95% CI: 12.2-22.8%) declared using RGs. Among these studies, 48.6% (95% CI: 32-65.1%) declared an appropriate use. There was an increasing trend over time for authors to report the use of RGs (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.13-1.53). Systematic reviews (n = 54) reported more frequently the use of RGs than other study designs (35.2%). CONCLUSION: In high-impact rehabilitation journals, a small minority of article authors declared the use of RGs. In approximately half of these studies, RGs were used inappropriately. There is an urgent need to improve the use of RGs in this field of research.