Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation
Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals. The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Physical therapy 2013-11, Vol.93 (11), p.1456-1466 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1466 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 11 |
| container_start_page | 1456 |
| container_title | Physical therapy |
| container_volume | 93 |
| creator | Gianola, Silvia Gasparini, Monica Agostini, Michela Castellini, Greta Corbetta, Davide Gozzer, Paolo Li, Linda C Sirtori, Valeria Taricco, Mariangela Tetzlaff, Jennifer M Turolla, Andrea Moher, David Moja, Lorenzo |
| description | Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals.
The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics.
A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively.
Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13-22 [48%-82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review.
This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2522/ptj.20120382 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1500788206</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A351434849</galeid><sourcerecordid>A351434849</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c673t-90ffa7d5b60e634de8537cb46b949269a096fbd827487652f5b5159f28acecb03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqV0s1v0zAUAPAIgVgZ3DijSlyYRIo_Y_s4VWxMqqi0wtlykpfEVT6K7Wz0v8elHVNRxYd8sGP__Bz7vSR5jdGMcEI-bMJ6RhAmiEryJJlgTmWaCcKeJhOEKE4VIvQseeH9GiGEBVPPkzNCBWOMy0myXI3uDrbToZqGBqa3sBlcsH09nTfGmSKAsz7Ywu_AausDdCZ-Rndn4d5PbR-Hjclta0NcGPqXybPKtB5eHfrz5OvVxy_zT-lieX0zv1ykRSZoiD9VVUaUPM8QZJSVIDkVRc6yXDFFMmWQyqq8lEQwKTJOKp5zzFVFpCmgyBE9T97t427c8G0EH3RnfQFta3oYRq8xR0hISVD2d8p2RwpERaRvf6PrYXR9vEhUXFElMcKPqjYtaNtXQ4hPtQuqLynHjDLJVFTpCVVDD860Qw-VjdNHfnbCx1ZCZ4uTGy6ONkQT4Huozei9vlnd_of9_M9WXi_-dMmDLYa2hRp0TPl8eezf733hBu8dVHrjbGfcVmOkd-WsYznrh3KO_M0hH2PeQfkLP9Tv4_mNrZt760D7zrRt5D8j7ZOnqMZ4l8CM_gCC1fi7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1459398101</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Gianola, Silvia ; Gasparini, Monica ; Agostini, Michela ; Castellini, Greta ; Corbetta, Davide ; Gozzer, Paolo ; Li, Linda C ; Sirtori, Valeria ; Taricco, Mariangela ; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ; Turolla, Andrea ; Moher, David ; Moja, Lorenzo</creator><creatorcontrib>Gianola, Silvia ; Gasparini, Monica ; Agostini, Michela ; Castellini, Greta ; Corbetta, Davide ; Gozzer, Paolo ; Li, Linda C ; Sirtori, Valeria ; Taricco, Mariangela ; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ; Turolla, Andrea ; Moher, David ; Moja, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><description>Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals.
The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics.
A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively.
Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13-22 [48%-82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review.
This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0031-9023</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-6724</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2522/ptj.20120382</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23744458</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Physical Therapy Association</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Clinical medicine ; Confidence intervals ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Epidemiology ; Evaluation ; Financial Support ; Guideline Adherence ; Guidelines as Topic ; Humans ; Library collections ; Medical publishing ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine, Experimental ; Physical therapy ; Publishing - standards ; Rehabilitation ; Research Design - standards ; Review Literature as Topic ; Software ; Statistical methods ; Studies</subject><ispartof>Physical therapy, 2013-11, Vol.93 (11), p.1456-1466</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 Oxford University Press</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2013 Oxford University Press</rights><rights>Copyright AMERICAN PHYSICAL THERAPY ASSOCIATION Nov 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c673t-90ffa7d5b60e634de8537cb46b949269a096fbd827487652f5b5159f28acecb03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c673t-90ffa7d5b60e634de8537cb46b949269a096fbd827487652f5b5159f28acecb03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23744458$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gianola, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gasparini, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Agostini, Michela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castellini, Greta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corbetta, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gozzer, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Linda C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirtori, Valeria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taricco, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tetzlaff, Jennifer M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turolla, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moja, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><title>Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation</title><title>Physical therapy</title><addtitle>Phys Ther</addtitle><description>Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals.
The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics.
A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively.
Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13-22 [48%-82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review.
This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Clinical medicine</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Epidemiology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Financial Support</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence</subject><subject>Guidelines as Topic</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Library collections</subject><subject>Medical publishing</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Physical therapy</subject><subject>Publishing - standards</subject><subject>Rehabilitation</subject><subject>Research Design - standards</subject><subject>Review Literature as Topic</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Studies</subject><issn>0031-9023</issn><issn>1538-6724</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqV0s1v0zAUAPAIgVgZ3DijSlyYRIo_Y_s4VWxMqqi0wtlykpfEVT6K7Wz0v8elHVNRxYd8sGP__Bz7vSR5jdGMcEI-bMJ6RhAmiEryJJlgTmWaCcKeJhOEKE4VIvQseeH9GiGEBVPPkzNCBWOMy0myXI3uDrbToZqGBqa3sBlcsH09nTfGmSKAsz7Ywu_AausDdCZ-Rndn4d5PbR-Hjclta0NcGPqXybPKtB5eHfrz5OvVxy_zT-lieX0zv1ykRSZoiD9VVUaUPM8QZJSVIDkVRc6yXDFFMmWQyqq8lEQwKTJOKp5zzFVFpCmgyBE9T97t427c8G0EH3RnfQFta3oYRq8xR0hISVD2d8p2RwpERaRvf6PrYXR9vEhUXFElMcKPqjYtaNtXQ4hPtQuqLynHjDLJVFTpCVVDD860Qw-VjdNHfnbCx1ZCZ4uTGy6ONkQT4Huozei9vlnd_of9_M9WXi_-dMmDLYa2hRp0TPl8eezf733hBu8dVHrjbGfcVmOkd-WsYznrh3KO_M0hH2PeQfkLP9Tv4_mNrZt760D7zrRt5D8j7ZOnqMZ4l8CM_gCC1fi7</recordid><startdate>20131101</startdate><enddate>20131101</enddate><creator>Gianola, Silvia</creator><creator>Gasparini, Monica</creator><creator>Agostini, Michela</creator><creator>Castellini, Greta</creator><creator>Corbetta, Davide</creator><creator>Gozzer, Paolo</creator><creator>Li, Linda C</creator><creator>Sirtori, Valeria</creator><creator>Taricco, Mariangela</creator><creator>Tetzlaff, Jennifer M</creator><creator>Turolla, Andrea</creator><creator>Moher, David</creator><creator>Moja, Lorenzo</creator><general>American Physical Therapy Association</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8GL</scope><scope>ISN</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20131101</creationdate><title>Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation</title><author>Gianola, Silvia ; Gasparini, Monica ; Agostini, Michela ; Castellini, Greta ; Corbetta, Davide ; Gozzer, Paolo ; Li, Linda C ; Sirtori, Valeria ; Taricco, Mariangela ; Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ; Turolla, Andrea ; Moher, David ; Moja, Lorenzo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c673t-90ffa7d5b60e634de8537cb46b949269a096fbd827487652f5b5159f28acecb03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Clinical medicine</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Epidemiology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Financial Support</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence</topic><topic>Guidelines as Topic</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Library collections</topic><topic>Medical publishing</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Physical therapy</topic><topic>Publishing - standards</topic><topic>Rehabilitation</topic><topic>Research Design - standards</topic><topic>Review Literature as Topic</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Studies</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gianola, Silvia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gasparini, Monica</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Agostini, Michela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Castellini, Greta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Corbetta, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gozzer, Paolo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Linda C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sirtori, Valeria</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taricco, Mariangela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tetzlaff, Jennifer M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Turolla, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moher, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moja, Lorenzo</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: High School</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Canada</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Physical therapy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gianola, Silvia</au><au>Gasparini, Monica</au><au>Agostini, Michela</au><au>Castellini, Greta</au><au>Corbetta, Davide</au><au>Gozzer, Paolo</au><au>Li, Linda C</au><au>Sirtori, Valeria</au><au>Taricco, Mariangela</au><au>Tetzlaff, Jennifer M</au><au>Turolla, Andrea</au><au>Moher, David</au><au>Moja, Lorenzo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation</atitle><jtitle>Physical therapy</jtitle><addtitle>Phys Ther</addtitle><date>2013-11-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>93</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1456</spage><epage>1466</epage><pages>1456-1466</pages><issn>0031-9023</issn><eissn>1538-6724</eissn><abstract>Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly important for informing clinical practice; however, little is known about the reporting characteristics and the quality of the SRs relevant to the practice of rehabilitation health professionals.
The purpose of this study was to examine the reporting quality of a representative sample of published SRs on rehabilitation, focusing on the descriptive, reporting, and bias-related characteristics.
A cross-sectional study was conducted by searching MEDLINE for aggregative and configurative SRs indexed in 2011 that focused on rehabilitation as restorative of functional limitations. Two reviewers independently screened and selected the SRs and extracted data using a 38-item data collection form derived from Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The data were analyzed descriptively.
Eighty-eight SRs published in 59 journals were sampled. The median compliance with the PRISMA items was 17 (63%) out of 27 items (interquartile ratio=13-22 [48%-82%]). Two thirds of the SRs (n=66) focused on interventions for which efficacy is best addressed through a randomized controlled trial (RCT) design, and almost all of these SRs included RCTs (63/66 [95%]). More than two thirds of the SRs assessed the quality of primary studies (74/88 [84%]). Twenty-eight reviews (28/88 [32%]) meta-analyzed the results for at least one outcome. One half of the SRs reported positive statistically significant findings (46%), whereas a detrimental result was present only in one review.
This sample of SRs in the rehabilitation field showed heterogeneous characteristics and a moderate quality of reporting. Poor control of potential source of bias might be improved if more widely agreed-upon evidence-based reporting guidelines will be actively endorsed and adhered to by authors and journals.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Physical Therapy Association</pub><pmid>23744458</pmid><doi>10.2522/ptj.20120382</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0031-9023 |
| ispartof | Physical therapy, 2013-11, Vol.93 (11), p.1456-1466 |
| issn | 0031-9023 1538-6724 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1500788206 |
| source | MEDLINE; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Analysis Clinical medicine Confidence intervals Cross-Sectional Studies Epidemiology Evaluation Financial Support Guideline Adherence Guidelines as Topic Humans Library collections Medical publishing Medical research Medicine Medicine, Experimental Physical therapy Publishing - standards Rehabilitation Research Design - standards Review Literature as Topic Software Statistical methods Studies |
| title | Survey of the Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews in Rehabilitation |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-03T08%3A30%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Survey%20of%20the%20Reporting%20Characteristics%20of%20Systematic%20Reviews%20in%20Rehabilitation&rft.jtitle=Physical%20therapy&rft.au=Gianola,%20Silvia&rft.date=2013-11-01&rft.volume=93&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1456&rft.epage=1466&rft.pages=1456-1466&rft.issn=0031-9023&rft.eissn=1538-6724&rft_id=info:doi/10.2522/ptj.20120382&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA351434849%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1459398101&rft_id=info:pmid/23744458&rft_galeid=A351434849&rfr_iscdi=true |