The use of systematic reviews for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research: a meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals.

BACKGROUND: Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). METHODS: This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs). RESULTS: In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature. CONCLUSION: Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.

Barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies for guideline-adherence in physiotherapy: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Guideline-adherent physiotherapy can improve patient outcomes and reduce costs in the healthcare system. However, although there are numerous guidelines for physiotherapy practice, services are not consistently based on clinical practice guidelines. While various systematic and scoping reviews have highlighted barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies for guideline-adherent practice in other health professions, this scoping review aims to explore the barriers and facilitators for guideline-adherent physiotherapy and summarises the strategies used to implement such practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be based on Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and the methodological guidance for conducting scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute. Relevant publications will be first searched from the beginning of June 2023 on the MEDLINE and CINAHL databases before we expand the search to other databases such as EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and PEDro at the end of June 2023. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of all retrieved citations for inclusion against the eligibility criteria before conducting an independent full-text screening. The criteria will be tested on a sample of abstracts before beginning the abstract review to ensure that they are robust enough to capture any articles that may relate. The extracted data will finally be collated and charted to summarise key findings regarding our research question. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review will provide an extensive overview of the barriers, facilitators and implementation strategies for guideline-adherent physiotherapy. As scoping reviews are a form of secondary data analysis, ethical review is not required. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and stakeholder meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This scoping review has been registered on 3 April 2023 on the Open Science Framework under https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SEUW6.