Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews

View through CrossRef
Abstract Introduction In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence‐synthesis rehabilitation studies. Objective To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition. To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition. Methods We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics. Results Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention‐General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention‐Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review. Discussion This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not find important gaps in the new definition. All elements of the new definition should be considered when writing review protocols and designing strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.
Title: The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews
Description:
Abstract Introduction In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence‐synthesis rehabilitation studies.
Objective To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.
To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.
Methods We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database.
We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR.
We verified if and where in the review these elements were present.
Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed.
We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.
Results Eight (6.
5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria.
These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions.
Three (2.
4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements.
Overall, the “Intervention‐General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention‐Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.
Discussion This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly.
The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability.
Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported.
We did not find important gaps in the new definition.
All elements of the new definition should be considered when writing review protocols and designing strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.

Related Results

[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED] Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies v1
[RETRACTED]Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies ==❱❱ Huge Discounts:[HURRY UP ] Absolute Keanu Reeves CBD Gummies (Available)Order Online Only!! ❰❰= https://www.facebook.com/Keanu-Reeves-CBD-G...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...
Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews
Citation of updated and co-published Cochrane Methodology Reviews
Abstract Background To evaluate the number of citations for Cochrane Methodology Reviews after they have been updated or co-published in another journal. Methods We identif...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical activi...

Back to Top