Article type
Year
Abstract
Objective: to check if randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on complex rehabilitation interventions published in the best physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) journals include all the practical details needed to replicate the intervention in the everyday clinics.
Design: survey on a pre-defined sample of PRM clinical expert teams representative of the different areas of the world and of different clinical competences.
Participants: 47 rehabilitation clinicians from seven teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, USA), including 20 PRM physicians, 12 physiotherapists, six occupational therapists, six rehabilitation psychologists and three others. The team leaders were clinicians and researchers.
Methods: all RCTs published between July and December 2016 in the main PRM journals (77 RCTs) have been submitted to each participant that was asked to fill in a questionnaire per study.
Main outcome measurements: the survey, consisting of 14 questions, was developed from CONSORT and TIDIeR checklists through consensus and piloting. The rate of agreement has been verified.
Results: the response rate was 99%. Overall, included RCTs were finally considered not replicable in clinics by 31% of participants. All teams considered 53% of the studies replicable, while in 23% of cases all the teams considered it not replicable; in no cases was one single RCT considered not replicable by all teams.
Conclusions: this study shows that there are problems in the clinical replicability of complex rehabilitation interventions RCTs and suggests the need to better focus the clinical items not described by classical methodological checklists like CONSORT.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: not applicable
Design: survey on a pre-defined sample of PRM clinical expert teams representative of the different areas of the world and of different clinical competences.
Participants: 47 rehabilitation clinicians from seven teams (Belgium, Italy, Malaysia, Pakistan, Poland, Puerto Rico, USA), including 20 PRM physicians, 12 physiotherapists, six occupational therapists, six rehabilitation psychologists and three others. The team leaders were clinicians and researchers.
Methods: all RCTs published between July and December 2016 in the main PRM journals (77 RCTs) have been submitted to each participant that was asked to fill in a questionnaire per study.
Main outcome measurements: the survey, consisting of 14 questions, was developed from CONSORT and TIDIeR checklists through consensus and piloting. The rate of agreement has been verified.
Results: the response rate was 99%. Overall, included RCTs were finally considered not replicable in clinics by 31% of participants. All teams considered 53% of the studies replicable, while in 23% of cases all the teams considered it not replicable; in no cases was one single RCT considered not replicable by all teams.
Conclusions: this study shows that there are problems in the clinical replicability of complex rehabilitation interventions RCTs and suggests the need to better focus the clinical items not described by classical methodological checklists like CONSORT.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: not applicable
PDF