Funding is related to the quality, conduct, and reporting of trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy: A survey of 210 published trials

Abstract

Background:The relationship between trial funding and methodological quality, the conduct and reporting of trials has been investigated in several medical disciplines, but remains unclear in musculoskeletal physical therapy trials. The aim of this study was to determine the association between funding and research team composition, sample size, quality, and journal impact factor of randomized controlled trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy. Methods: A survey of 210 trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy, which were randomly selected from those published in 2011-2013 and indexed on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), is performed. Total PEDro score and citation details of the trial reports were downloaded from PEDro. Pairs of assessors independently extracted information about funding, sample size, and composition of the research team. Journal impact factor was downloaded by one reviewer. Results: Trial funding was associated with having multiple departments in the research team (odds ratio: 1.89, 95% confidence interval: 1.03-3.49), larger sample size (median: n = 72 versus n = 50), higher quality (mean PEDro score: 6.06 versus 5.11), and publication in journals with higher impact factors (median: 2.12 versus 1.78). Conclusion: Trial funding was positively associated with having multiple departments represented in the research team, larger sample size, higher quality, and publication in higher impact factor journals.

Methodological quality of randomized controlled trials of home-based rehabilitation in knee osteoarthritis: A cross-sectional survey

“…A similar situation was reported in previous studies [23,26,33]. RCTs that receive funding are published in journals that have higher impact factors than RCTs that do not receive or specify this information, have a larger sample size, and better methodological quality [33,37]. The source of the funds was unclear in most studies.…”

Citation impact of public and private funding on nanotechnology-related publications

“…Scientists with prestigious awards and a large stock of federal funding do in fact collaborate in larger teams, and this collaboration generally provides better opportunities for their work to be cited more frequently. A study by Maas et al (2016) reports that funding in health fields is positively associated with higher quality.…”

A methodological survey on reporting of pilot and feasibility trials for physiotherapy interventions: a study protocol

“…The transparency in reporting randomised controlled trials has improved since the introduction of the CONSORT statement 12. A number of other factors are also associated with better trial quality, including being funded,14 being prospectively registered,13 being published in English15 and having larger sample sizes 14 29. Whether these variables are also associated with better reporting quality of pilot or feasibility studies has not been rigorously investigated.…”

“…Two independent models will be built, one using the summary score for the CONSORT pilot and feasibility trials checklist (ie, for the full article) as the dependent variable and the second model using the summary score for the CONSORT pilot and feasibility trials abstracts checklist. Independent variables for both models will be (1) publication in a journal that endorses CONSORT12 13 (1 for yes or 0 for no), (2) trial funded14 (1 for yes or 0 for no), (3) sample size14 (as a continuous variable), (4) reported trial registration number (1 for yes and 0 for no), (5) total PEDro score (continuous variable, 0–10), (6) most applicable subdiscipline of physiotherapy27 (coded as dummy variables), (7) language of publication (1 for English and 0 for all other languages), (8) non-Chinese reports (1 for yes and 0 for ‘trials published in languages other than Chinese’), (9) number of authors (continuous variable) and (10) reporting allocation concealment (PEDro scale item 3, 1 for yes and 0 for no).…”

“…The completeness of reporting of full published reports of randomised controlled trials10–15 and the abstracts of trials16–18 has been evaluated to be suboptimal across all areas of healthcare, including in physiotherapy 11 13–15 19. Factors that appear to be associated with improved reporting quality or methodological quality include publication in a journal with a high-impact factor,20–22 being a multicentre trial,21 23–25 a higher number of authors,21 26 publication in a journal that endorses the CONSORT statement,12 13 19 language of the publication,15 21 25 discipline of physiotherapy,27 year of publication,13 28 receiving grants from research funding agencies,14 sample size14 29 and evidence of clinical trial registration 13 19…”