TY - JOUR
T1 - Declaration of use and appropriate use of reporting guidelines in high-impact rehabilitation journals is limited
T2 - a meta-research study
AU - Innocenti, Tiziano
AU - Salvioli, Stefano
AU - Giagio, Silvia
AU - Feller, Daniel
AU - Cartabellotta, Nino
AU - Chiarotto, Alessandro
PY - 2021/3
Y1 - 2021/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Cross-Sectional Studies
KW - Guideline Adherence/statistics & numerical data
KW - Humans
KW - Periodicals as Topic
KW - Rehabilitation/methods
KW - Research Design
KW - Research Report/standards
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85097735758&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85097735758&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.010
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.11.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 33227447
AN - SCOPUS:85097735758
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 131
SP - 43
EP - 50
JO - Journal of clinical epidemiology
JF - Journal of clinical epidemiology
ER -