Effectiveness of different physiotherapy interventions in the management of cervicogenic headache: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Rani, Monika; Kaur, Jaspreet

doi:10.1080/10669817.2021.1962687

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 40 RCTs reviewed, 7 were available via open access. Most RCTs ( n = 34, 85.0%) were registered, 25 prospectively 43–67 and 9 retrospectively 68–76 . All RCT registrations were accessible for review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All RCT registrations were accessible for review. Among the registered RCTs, 14 (41.8%) publications referenced CONSORT or other similar reporting guidelines 44,47–49,57,58,60–62,68,71–74 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The primary outcome was explicitly stated in the majority of studies ( n = 28, 70.0%) 43,44,46–49,51–57,59,61,62,64,65,67,68,71–78 as were the secondary outcomes ( n = 27, 67.5%) 43,44,46–49,51–53,55–57,59,61,62,64,65,67,68,71–78 . Eligibility criteria was listed in all 34 (100.0%) registrations, but only 2 63,67 had results posted in the registry (5.9%) (Table 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A comparison of the published RCTs with associated registrations demonstrated that the primary outcome was identical in 15 studies (44.1%) 46,48,54,56–59,62,65–67,73–76 and for those with secondary outcomes it was identical in seven studies (20.6%) 46,56–58,67,75,76 . Nine (26.5%) 45,50,51,59,61–63,71,74 RCTs had a novel outcome (i.e., not prespecified in the registry) and none declared these outcomes as novel. A statistical analysis plan was present in 5 (14.7%) 55,62,65,67,72 registrations, but only one was congruent with the published study 67 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Twenty‐five studies did not address all discrepancies. Of these 25, 4 registered studies (11.8%) addressed some of the discrepancies 49,62,65,72 and 21 registered studies (61.8%) did not address any discrepancies 43–45,47,50–53,55,59–61,63,64,66,68–71,73,74 . Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy , Journal of Manual and Manipulative Therapy and PTJ: Physical Therapy & Rehabilitation Journal (PTJ) were the only journals to publish five or more RCTs during the 6‐month period of this review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Trials and tribulations of transparency related to inconsistencies between plan and conduct in peer‐reviewed physiotherapy publications: A methodology review

McClenahan

Lojacono

Young

et al. 2023

Evaluation Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

RationaleThe physiotherapy profession strives to be a leader in providing quality care and strongly recognizes the value of research to guide clinical practice. Adherence to guidelines for research reporting and conduct is a significant step towards high‐quality, transparent and reproducible research.Aim/ObjectiveAssess integrity between planned and conducted methodology in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in physiotherapy journals.MethodsEighteen journals were manually searched for RCTs and SRs published from 1 July 2021 through 31 December 2021. Studies were included if the journal or specific study was indexed in PubMed and published/translated in English. Descriptive statistics determined congruence between preregistration data and publication.ResultsForty RCTs and 68 SRs were assessed. Forty‐three SRs included meta‐analysis (MA). Of the 34 registered RCTs, 7 (20.6%) had no discrepancy between the registration and publication. Two trials (5.9%) addressed all discrepancies, 4 (11.8%) addressed some and 21 (61.8%) did not address any discrepancies. Of the 36 registered MAs, 33 (91.7%) had discrepancies between the registration and publication. Two (5.6%) addressed all discrepancies and three (8.3%) had no discrepancies. Eight SRs without MA published information not matching their registration, and none provided justification for the discrepancies.ConclusionMost RCTs/SRs were registered; the majority had discrepancies between preregistration and publication, potentially influencing the outcomes and interpretations of findings. Journals should require preregistration and compare the submission with the registration information when assessing publication suitability. Readers should be aware of these inconsistencies and their implications when interpreting and translating results into practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%