Usage evaluation of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) among Brazilian physical therapists

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) is widely and equally used by physical therapists in Brazil. As PEDro is considered a key resource to support evidence-based physical therapy, analyses of PEDro usage could reflect the extent of dissemination of evidence-based practice.OBJECTIVE: To describe the usage of PEDro among the five regions of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) and, in more detail, in the South American region and Brazil over a 5-year period.METHOD: PEDro home-page sessions and the number of searches performed were logged for a 5-year period (2010-2014). Absolute usage and relative usage were calculated for each region of the WCPT, each country in the South American region of WCPT, and each Regional Council (CREFITO) in Brazil.RESULTS: Europe had the highest absolute and relative usage among the five regions of the WCPT (971 searches per million-population per year), with the South American region ranked 4th in absolute terms and 3rd in relative terms (486). Within the South American region, Brazil accounted for nearly 60% of searches (755). Analysis at a national level revealed that usage per physical therapist in Brazil is very low across all CREFITOs. The highest usage occurred in CREFITO 6 with 1.3 searches per physical therapist per year.CONCLUSIONS: PEDro is not widely and equally used throughout Brazil. Strategies to promote PEDro and to make PEDro more accessible to physical therapists speaking Portuguese are needed.

Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals

Background : While the research design of articles published in medical journals and in some physical therapy journals has already been evaluated, this has not been investigated in Brazilian physical therapy journals. Objective : To describe the research design used in all articles published in Brazilian scientific journals that are freely available, have high Qualis rankings, and are relevant to physical therapy over a 7-year period. Method : We extracted the bibliometric data, research design, research type (human or animal), and clinical area for all articles published. The articles were grouped into their level of evidence, and descriptive analyses were performed. We calculated the frequency, proportions of articles, and 95% confidence interval of these proportions with each research design in each journal. We cross-tabulated the clinical areas with research designs (expressed as number and percentages). Results : A total of 1,458 articles from four Brazilian journals were found: Revista Brasileira de Fisioterapia, Revista Fisioterapia em Movimento, Revista Fisioterapia e Pesquisa, and Revista Acta Fisiátrica. The majority of articles were classified as level II of evidence (60%), followed by level III (29%) and level I (10%). The most prevalent research designs were cross-sectional studies (38%), single-case or case-series studies, and narrative reviews. Most articles reported human research and were in the musculoskeletal, neurologic, and cardiothoracic areas. Conclusions : Most of the research published in Brazilian physical therapy journals used levels II and III of evidence. Increasing the publication rate of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials would provide more high-quality evidence to guide evidence-based physical therapy practice. .

Reproducibility of the Portuguese version of the PEDro Scale / Reprodutibilidade da Escala de Qualidade PEDro em português

The objective of this study was to test the inter-rater reproducibility of the Portuguese version of the PEDro Scale. Seven physiotherapists rated the methodological quality of 50 reports of randomized controlled trials written in Portuguese indexed on the PEDro database. Each report was also rated using the English version of the PEDro Scale. Reproducibility was evaluated by comparing two separate ratings of reports written in Portuguese and comparing the Portuguese PEDro score with the English version of the scale. Kappa coefficients ranged from 0.53 to 1.00 for individual item and an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.82 for the total PEDro score was observed. The standard error of the measurement of the scale was 0.58. The Portuguese version of the scale was comparable with the English version, with an ICC of 0.78. The inter-rater reproducibility of the Brazilian Portuguese PEDro Scale is adequate and similar to the original English version.

O objetivo foi testar a reprodutibilidade da versão em português da Escala de Qualidade PEDro. Sete fisioterapeutas avaliaram a qualidade metodológica de 50 estudos controlados aleatorizados em português, indexados na base de dados PEDro. Cada artigo já possuía sua respectiva avaliação nessa base de dados, utilizando a versão em inglês da escala PEDro. Foi calculada a confiabilidade da escala, assim como foi comparada a pontuação total de consenso com a pontuação das avaliações utilizando a escala em inglês. Os coeficientes kappa variaram entre 0,53 e 1,00 para itens individuais, e um coeficiente de correlação intraclasse (CCI) de 0,82 foi obtido para a pontuação total. O erro-padrão de medida foi de 0,58 ponto. A versão em português da escala foi comparada com a versão em inglês e foi observado um CCI de 0,78. A reprodutibilidade da versão em língua portuguesa da Escala de Qualidade PEDro foi adequada e similar à versão em inglês.