The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals

Author:

Rosen DianeORCID,Reiter Nils L.ORCID,Vogel Barbara,Prill RobertORCID

Abstract

Abstract Background Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients. Objective The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). Methods This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs). Results In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature. Conclusion Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.

Funder

Brandenburger Staatsministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kultur

Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg CAMPUS gGmbH

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference41 articles.

1. Altbach PG, De Wit H. Too much academic research is being published. Int High Educ. 2018;96:2–3.

2. Wordsrated. Number of Academic Papers Published Per Year. 2023. Available from: https://wordsrated.com/number-of-academic-papers-published-per-year/. [cited 2023 Nov 9].

3. Garba S. Proliferations of Scientific Medical Journals: A Burden or A Blessing. Oman Med J. 2010. Available from: http://www.omjournal.org/fultext_PDF.aspx?DetailsID=34&type=fultext. [cited 2023 Apr 12].

4. Kim D, Hasford J. Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):107.

5. Fransen M, McConnell S, Bell M. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2003;(3):CD004286.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3