| Full text | |
| Author(s): |
Nascimento, Dafne Port
[1]
;
Gonzalez, Gabrielle Zoldan
[1]
;
Araujo, Amanda Costa
[1]
;
Moseley, Anne
[2, 3]
;
Maher, Christopher
[2, 3]
;
Costa, Leonardo Oliveira Pena
[1]
Total Authors: 6
|
| Affiliation: | [1] Univ Cidade Sao Paulo, Masters & Doctoral Programs Phys Therapy, Sao Paulo - Brazil
[2] Univ Sydney, Sydney, NSW - Australia
[3] Fac Med & Hlth, Sydney Sch Publ Hlth, Inst Musculoskeletal Hlth, Sydney, NSW - Australia
Total Affiliations: 3
|
| Document type: | Review article |
| Source: | BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL THERAPY; v. 25, n. 3, p. 233-241, MAY-JUN 2021. |
| Web of Science Citations: | 0 |
| Abstract | |
of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing andit may not accurately summarize the results of the review. Objective: We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts. Methods: We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/ journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2). Results: We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from `high' (8%) to `critically low' (76%). The mean +/- SD of the ``total number of PRISMAA fully reported items'' (range 0-12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 +/- 1.9 points fornonCochrane review abstracts and 9.9 +/- 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (beta 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (beta 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality low' with beta-3.06; 95% CI: -5.30, -0.82; with `high' as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60. Conclusions: The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality. (C) 2020 Associacao Brasileira de Pesquisa e Pos-Graduacao em Fisioterapia. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda. All rights reserved. (AU) | |
| FAPESP's process: | 16/17853-4 - Analyses of reporting quality and accuracy of abstracts of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in Physiotherapy and other health care areas |
| Grantee: | Dafne Port Nascimento |
| Support Opportunities: | Scholarships in Brazil - Doctorate (Direct) |