One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions, According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation

William M.M. Levack, Farooq A. Rathore, Joel Pollet, Stefano Negrini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection: We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library. Data Extraction: We built an online rational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation's social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed. Data Synthesis: We identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions. Conclusion: Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.

Original languageEnglish
JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Rehabilitation
Libraries
Databases
Social Media
Physicians
Allied Health Personnel
Information Storage and Retrieval
Physical Therapists
Advisory Committees
Uncertainty
Publications

Keywords

  • Classification
  • Crowdsourcing
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Rehabilitation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
  • Rehabilitation

Cite this

@article{891f34de804540bda5569ecd9d04834b,
title = "One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions, According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation",
abstract = "Objective: To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection: We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library. Data Extraction: We built an online rational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation's social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed. Data Synthesis: We identified that 9.4{\%} of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions. Conclusion: Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.",
keywords = "Classification, Crowdsourcing, Evidence-based medicine, Evidence-based practice, Rehabilitation",
author = "Levack, {William M.M.} and Rathore, {Farooq A.} and Joel Pollet and Stefano Negrini",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.021",
language = "English",
journal = "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0003-9993",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions, According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation

AU - Levack, William M.M.

AU - Rathore, Farooq A.

AU - Pollet, Joel

AU - Negrini, Stefano

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Objective: To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection: We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library. Data Extraction: We built an online rational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation's social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed. Data Synthesis: We identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions. Conclusion: Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.

AB - Objective: To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice. Data Sources: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Study Selection: We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library. Data Extraction: We built an online rational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation's social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed. Data Synthesis: We identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions. Conclusion: Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.

KW - Classification

KW - Crowdsourcing

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Evidence-based practice

KW - Rehabilitation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063761756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85063761756&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.021

DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.021

M3 - Article

JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0003-9993

ER -