The Evidence-Based Research approach for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research. A meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals to those of leading journals with the highest impact factor

The Evidence-Based Research approach for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research. A meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals to those of leading journals with the highest impact factor | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Evidence-Based Research approach for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research. A meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals to those of leading journals with the highest impact factor Diane Rosen, Nils L. Reiter, Barbara Vogel, Robert Prill This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3275502/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 13 Jan, 2024 Read the published version in Systematic Reviews → Version 1 posted 5 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background: The Evidence-Based Research (EBR) approach requires authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature. Adhering to this approach prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. To promote the adoption of this approach, scientific medical journals could include the EBR approach in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is particularly 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 EBR approach is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and leading journals (LJs), i.e. 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. The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that new studies should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 LJs, which were identified by their impact factor in the SCIE. Results: In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify new trials. Among LJs, four journals (28,57%) required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature. Conclusion: Neither PTJs nor LJs have adopted the EBR approach in their author guidelines. Further efforts are needed to establish the implementation. evidence-based research (EBR) physiotherapy physical therapy scientific medical journals publication guidelines author guidelines evidence-based practice (EBP) meta research Figures Figure 1 Background The number of published scientific papers is constantly increasing( 1 ). Consequently, it is becoming more challenging for end-users to distinguish between high quality, relevant literature and research waste which is redundant and irrelevant( 2 ). Furthermore, conducting redundant research is unethical and wastes human and financial resources( 3 ). In the field of physiotherapy research, redundant studies are still being carried out. One example is research into the effects of exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Although previous trials and a series of Cochrane reviews have shown and summarised the benefits of exercise( 4 – 6 ), research on this topic is still ongoing( 7 ). To counteract research waste and to conduct research in a transparent manner, the Evidence-Based Research (EBR) approach was developed( 8 , 9 ). It states that new research should be justified by a systematic review (SR) of the existing literature and that the results of a new study should be discussed in the context of a SR( 8 ). According to the EBR Network a SR is defined as “a structured and preplanned synthesis of original studies that consists of predefined research questions, inclusion criteria, search methods, selection procedures, quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis”( 10 ). The EBR approach has been shown to be able to reduce research waste to some extent( 11 ). However, it is rarely used by authors in general medicine( 12 – 16 ) or physiotherapy and rehabilitation research( 17 ). Among others, scientific medical journals are relevant stakeholders in implementing the EBR approach( 8 , 17 ) as they play an important role in avoiding research waste( 18 , 19 ). The Lancet already requires the justification of new studies through SRs( 20 ). Such recommendations apply to general medicine but are also relevant to physiotherapy. Most physiotherapy research is based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients( 17 ), some of whom receive unnecessary treatment if previous trials have already shown the effects of a particular intervention and there is no question of clinical equipoise. The aim of this meta-research study was to determine the extent to which physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs) require the use of SRs for the study rationale in their author guidelines for RCTs and compare them with the author guidelines of leading journals (LJs), i.e. journals with a high impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). It was hypothesised that PTJs would be less likely to require the EBR approach than LJs. Methods To provide an overview of the use of the EBR approach, author guidelines for RCTs of PTJs and LJs were systematically reviewed. PTJs were defined as journals publishing RCTs relevant to physiotherapy. To identify PTJs, three strategies were combined. As a first strategy, the PEDro database( 21 ), which specialises in the publication of research relevant to physiotherapy, was accessed. All clinical trials referenced and published in the last five years (between January 2016 and August 2021) were extracted and organised by the journal in which they were published using an automated Microsoft Excel (version 16.70) macro tool. Journals were then ranked by the number of publications and included if at least 22 publications, including one RCT, were referenced 19 . The cut-off was set at 22 publications because journals were only considered relevant to physiotherapy if at least one physiotherapy-related study was published every three months. As a second strategy, the Medline database( 22 ) was searched via PubMed using the terms: ‘physiotherapy’ OR ‘physical therapy’ and the filters ‘humans’, ‘clinical trial’, and ‘RCT’. Studies were extracted and organised using the aforementioned Excel macro tool and journals were included using the same cut-off of 22 physiotherapy-related studies. Furthermore, journals in the rehabilitation category of the SCIE database( 23 ), with an impact factor of at least 1.0, were included. Journals in the categories ‘Sport Science’ and ‘Orthopaedics’ which are closely related to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, were also included if at least 10 publications (one per six months), were referenced in PEDro( 21 ) or PubMed( 22 ) according to the above criteria. All included journals were combined into a final list and duplicates were removed. The final list was then compared with 25 LJs. These were defined as journals with the highest impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in the SCIE using the ‘Clinical Medicine’ filter. A data extraction protocol was used in accordance with the EBR criteria to systematically search the websites of the journals. Their publication guidelines were identified by searching the homepage using the following search terms: 'author guidelines', 'information for authors', 'submission guidelines', 'reporting guidelines', 'submission checklist', 'for authors', and 'about'. In the identified section, it was determined whether journals required the use of SRs to justify a new study, whether appropriate background was required, whether no background was mentioned, or whether the journal explicitly stated that no systematic review of the literature was needed. Additionally, it was assessed if journals referred to other reporting standards which require an appropriate background. These were referrals to the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) or the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklists( 24 – 27 ). The following terms were searched: ‘background’, ‘rationale’, ‘intro’, ‘reporting’, ‘systematic review’, ‘consort’, ‘spirit’, ‘equator’, ‘icmje’, ‘international’. The results for the two groups, PTJs, and LJs, were then compared. Results According to the search strategy, 12,233 clinical trials which were published in 2,024 journals were identified via the PEDro database and 21,197 clinical trials which were published in 1,994 journals were identified via PubMed. The search of the SCIE database resulted in 224 extracted PTJs. After removing duplicates, the final list contained 152 PTJs. Three PTJs were excluded from the analysis. One because it wasn’t actively publishing anymore, and two because they published in languages other than German or English. Eleven of the 25 LJs were excluded as they didn’t publish RCTs. In total, 149 PTJs were compared with 14 LJs. The full list can be found in the appendix. The journal selection process is illustrated in Fig. 1. Figure 1: Flow chart for the journal selection process None of the PTJs required an SR for the study rationale in their author guidelines. Four of the LJs (28.57%), all associated with The Lancet group( 20 ), required a prior SR of the literature. As shown in Table 1 , an appropriate background was required in 20.13% of the PTJs and 21.43% of the LJs. These included journals within the SAGE publishing group( 28 ) and Frontiers journals, which implemented a specific guideline known as VALID, where ‘D’ represents the requirement for grounding studies in existing literature through sufficient referencing and appropriate coverage of relevant literature( 29 ). The majority, 79.87% of PTJs and half of all LJs examined, either did not require a literature-based background or explicitly discouraged authors from using SRs to provide a rationale for the study. No specific reason was given by these journals, most of which are part of the Elsevier publishing group( 30 ). Most of the PTJs (74.50%) and of the LJs (92.86%) refer to the reporting standards CONSORT or SPIRIT. Table 1 Results Category PTJs n = 149 LJs n = 14 Overall n = 163 SR in rationale SR in rationale is required 0 (0) 4 (28,57) 4 (2,45) appropriate background needed 30 (20,13) 3 (21,43) 33 (20,25) state nothing regarding background 103 (69,13) 6 (42,86) 109 (66,87) explicitly no systemic review of the literature is needed 16 (10,74) 1 (7,14) 17 (10,43) Reporting standard refer to CONSORT or SPIRIT or both 111 (74,50) 13 (92,86) 124 (76,07) do not refer to a reporting standard 38 (25,5) 1 (7,14) 39 (23,93) Data are presented as the number of journals in the indicated category, which comply with the findings in n (%). Discussion The primary finding of this study is that the EBR approach, which requires the justification of new studies with SRs, is rarely implemented. This observation applies to both the author guidelines of PTJs and LJs reviewed in this study. The majority of journals analysed refer to reporting standards such as CONSORT or SPIRIT. The CONSORT statement calls for an "adequate background" for the rationale of new clinical trials and also states that trials should “include a reference to a systematic review of previous similar trials or a note of the absence of such trials”( 31 ). However, as described in the introduction, a large number of studies show that SRs are rarely used to develop study rationales( 12 – 16 ). In physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, this applies to only one-third of all studies reviewed( 17 ). Simply referring to reporting standards such as CONSORT, without explicitly requiring reference to SRs in the author guidelines, does not appear to be sufficient to encourage authors to comply and use SRs in their study justification. Clear requirements in author guidelines, such as those used by The Lancet, may be more likely to result in compliance with the methods described. According to the EBR Statement, relevant stakeholders have different responsibilities in the research process( 8 ). While researchers should be able to prioritise research questions, taking into account all previous and ongoing research on the topic, and know how to find, evaluate and develop SRs, editors and journals should assess and evaluate whether the research is adequately described in the context of a SR( 8 ). Problems with placing current clinical research in the context of previous findings may indicate that editors and journals are not assessing the submitted papers critically enough and against the specifications of the author guidelines or their selected referrals to reporting standards like the CONSORT statement. Although several studies show that new clinical trials are not adequately referencing SRs, several meta-research studies show a significant increase in the total number of SRs conducted( 32 – 34 ). Hoffmann et al. 2021 describe a 20-fold increase in SRs from 2000 to 2019 which also plays an important role in the production of research waste. According to Ioannidis, masses of unnecessary, misleading and contradictory SRs are being published which are unable to provide an accurate assessment of the current state of research, again highlighting the importance of knowing how to critically appraise SRs( 32 ). This difficulty is particularly important in physiotherapy, where progress in different areas of research is uneven. While in some areas like osteoarthritis research, a series of Cochrane reviews indicate that no further research on the effects of exercise is needed( 4 – 7 ), there are multiple areas where there is hardly any data or high-quality studies yet( 35 – 38 ). A strength of this meta-research study is that to our knowledge this was the first study examining the EBR approach in PTJs. A limitation of this study is that only 149 PTJs were examined, so it is possible that not all journals potentially relevant to physiotherapy were captured. Additionally, PTJs were identified by looking at how many trials were published. The quality of the underlying publications wasn’t determined which could induce a bias to the relevance of certain journals to physiotherapy. Furthermore, it is possible that results were not found or were misinterpreted due to the organization of websites and the structure of author guidelines, which vary between publishers. Conclusion The aim of this meta-research study was to investigate the extent to which PTJs have implemented the EBR approach. Based on the findings of this study, it is evident that the EBR approach has not been widely integrated into the author guidelines of the analysed scientific medical journals. The majority of the analysed journals refer to the CONSORT statement which requires the use of SRs for the study justification which is part of the EBR approach. Only journals associated with The Lancet explicitly require the use of SRs in their author guidelines. With regard to the hypothesis of this study, it can be concluded that PTJs require the EBR approach less than LJs. Additional measures would be necessary to effectively establish the EBR approach. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable Consent for publication Not applicable Availability of data and materials The exact results of this study are shown in the supplements. Competing interests Robert Prill was member of the EU fundet project: COST Action CA17117 EVBRES and is Director of the JBI Affiliated Group Evidence Based Brandenburg in Germany, which both promote the EBR Approach. Funding Funded by the Brandenburg Medical School publication fund supported by the German Research Foundation and the Ministry of Science, Research and Cultural Affairs of the State of Brandenburg. Authors' contributions DR and RP had the idea for this work. DR, BV, and RP elaborated the methods for this study. DR analysed and interpreted the data. DR drafted the manuscript. NLR and RP were major contributors to writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We thank Stefan Rosen for the coding of the Microsoft Excel (Version 16.70) Macro Tool. Authors' information Diane Rosen Core staff at Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Evidence-Based Practice in Brandenburg (EBB) Affiliated Group at Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany Research Assistant at Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany Master Student at Berlin School of Public Health, Germany Contact: [email protected] Nils L. Reiter Research Associate at Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany Contact: [email protected] Dr. Barbara Vogel, MPH Senior physiotherapist, Physical Therapy, Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany Contact : [email protected] Dr. Robert Prill Head of Research / Center of Orthopedics and Traumatology / Center for Joint Replacement West-Brandenburg / Center of Physiotherapy at University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel Director at JBI Affiliated Group EBB Affiliated Group at Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane Member of the Scientific Medical Journals (SMJ) working group EVBRES Cost Action CA17117 Contact : [email protected] References Maher CG, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, Herbert RD. A Description of the Trials, Reviews, and Practice Guidelines Indexed in the PEDro Database. Phys Ther. 2008;88(9):1068–77. Garba S. Proliferations of Scientific Medical Journals: A Burden or A Blessing. Oman Med J [Internet]. 2010 Oct [cited 2023 Apr 12]; Available from: http://www.omjournal.org/fultext_PDF. aspx?DetailsID=34&type=fultext. Kim D, Hasford J. Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):107. Fransen M, McConnell S, Bell M. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2003;(3):CD004286. Fransen M, McConnell S. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008. p. CD004376.pub2. https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub2 . Fransen M, McConnell S, Harmer AR, Van der Esch M, Simic M, Bennell KL. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015; https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub3 . Verhagen AP, Ferreira M, Reijneveld-van de Vendel EAE, Teirlinck CH, Runhaar J, van Middelkoop M, et al. Do we need another trial on exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(9):1266–9. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;i5440. Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:151–7. Lund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. The Lancet. 2016;387(10014):123–4. Lund H, Juhl CB, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2: Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:158–66. Andreasen J, Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K et al. Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science—A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Grzybowski A, editor. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0276955. Draborg E, Andreasen J, Nørgaard B, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K, et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results—a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):189. Nørgaard B, Draborg E, Andreasen J, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K et al. Systematic Reviews are Rarely Used to Inform Study Design - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;S0895435622000166. Engelking A, Cavar M, Puljak L. The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: A meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Pain. 2018;22(10):1844–9. Robinson KA, Goodman SN. A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(1):50. Hoderlein X, Moseley AM, Elkins MR. Citation of prior research has increased in introduction and discussion sections with time: A survey of clinical trials in physiotherapy. Clin Trials. 2017;14(4):372–80. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. 2009;374. Smith R. What are medical journals for and how well do they fulfil those functions? [Internet]. The BMJ Opinion. 2016 [cited 2023 Apr 12]. Available from: https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/04/19/richard-smith-what-are-medical-journals-for-and-how-well-do-they-fulfil-those-functions/ . Lancet, RCT Author guidelines Lancet [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/RCTguidelines-1668613849943.pdf . PEDro. PEDro homepage [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from: https://pedro.org.au . PubMed. PubMed homepage [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . JCR. SCIE Clarivate Web of Science [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.webofscience.com . EQUATOR Network [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/ . ICMJE [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.icmje.org . Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200. SAGE. SAGE homepage [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com . Frontiers. Frontiers homepage [Internet]. 2021. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org . Elsevier. Elsevier homepage [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/ . CONSORT- Guidance for reporting a randomised trial [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.goodreports.org/reporting-checklists/consort/info/#2a . Ioannidis JPA. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000–2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:1–11. Van Der Braak K, Ghannad M, Orelio C, Heus P, Damen JAA, Spijker R, et al. The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):191. Aledi B, Flumignan L, Trevisani CD, Miranda VF Jr. F. Interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes. Cochrane Vascular Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2023 Jun 5 [cited 2023 Aug 18];2023(6). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013711.pub2 . Momosaki R, Tsuboi M, Yasufuku Y, Furudate K, Kamo T, Uda K, et al. Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews in physiotherapy: a systematic search and analytical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019;42(2):97–105. Nascimento Leite M, Kamper SJ, O’Connell NE, Michaleff ZA, Fisher E, Viana Silva P et al. Physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2023 Jul 13 [cited 2023 Aug 18];2023(7). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013527.pub2 . Smart KM, Wand BM, O’Connell NE. Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016 Feb 24 [cited 2023 Aug 18];2016(3). http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub2 . Supplementary Files AdditionalFile1.docx Additional material File name: Additional File 1 File format: Microsoft Word document .docx Title of data: Supplementary File Description of data: table with full data of results Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 13 Jan, 2024 Read the published version in Systematic Reviews → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Minor revision 06 Nov, 2023 Reviewers agreed at journal 28 Aug, 2023 Reviewers invited by journal 25 Aug, 2023 Editor assigned by journal 25 Aug, 2023 First submitted to journal 22 Aug, 2023 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3275502","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":228856850,"identity":"9d2c1167-7e15-4a9f-b9cc-eae07f7c7171","order_by":0,"name":"Diane Rosen","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7647-2194","institution":"MHB Brandenburg Campus: Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Diane","middleName":"","lastName":"Rosen","suffix":""},{"id":228856851,"identity":"1084a38d-4fd7-42f0-a6cc-97cb65065a11","order_by":1,"name":"Nils L. Reiter","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences: Alice Salomon Hochschule Berlin","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Nils","middleName":"L.","lastName":"Reiter","suffix":""},{"id":228856852,"identity":"479719e6-4c03-4606-bd75-d7d8fac332ed","order_by":2,"name":"Barbara Vogel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Klinikum rechts der Isar der Technischen Universitat Munchen","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Barbara","middleName":"","lastName":"Vogel","suffix":""},{"id":228856853,"identity":"07b2a822-3e94-41de-a193-0cc6f74bf7dd","order_by":3,"name":"Robert Prill","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"MHB Brandenburg Campus: Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Robert","middleName":"","lastName":"Prill","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-08-18 13:32:31","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3275502/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3275502/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02427-7","type":"published","date":"2024-01-13T15:01:00+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":42367928,"identity":"2c7d5a23-981d-426a-9276-2ecd9f6b95a5","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-08-30 14:08:30","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":53679,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFlow chart for the journal selection process\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"journalselectionprocess.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3275502/v1/0941d6fd5e46967bfde36127.png"},{"id":49628636,"identity":"93782771-1626-4a2c-964c-424f7eb6ae6e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-15 15:08:35","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":341545,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3275502/v1/3d9ddddd-fc8e-4cb5-b16e-bdbb26f35de2.pdf"},{"id":42367929,"identity":"b3821441-2f07-4156-9b24-d8725f72085f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2023-08-30 14:08:30","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":63925,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAdditional material\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFile name: Additional \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;File 1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFile format: Microsoft Word \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;document .docx\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTitle of data: Supplementary File\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eDescription of data: \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;table with full data of results\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","description":"","filename":"AdditionalFile1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3275502/v1/246d776ec26e598ad9addc06.docx"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"The Evidence-Based Research approach for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research. A meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals to those of leading journals with the highest impact factor","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe number of published scientific papers is constantly increasing(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). Consequently, it is becoming more challenging for end-users to distinguish between high quality, relevant literature and research waste which is redundant and irrelevant(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, conducting redundant research is unethical and wastes human and financial resources(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e). In the field of physiotherapy research, redundant studies are still being carried out. One example is research into the effects of exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Although previous trials and a series of Cochrane reviews have shown and summarised the benefits of exercise(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e), research on this topic is still ongoing(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo counteract research waste and to conduct research in a transparent manner, the Evidence-Based Research (EBR) approach was developed(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e). It states that new research should be justified by a systematic review (SR) of the existing literature and that the results of a new study should be discussed in the context of a SR(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). According to the EBR Network a SR is defined as \u0026ldquo;a structured and preplanned synthesis of original studies that consists of predefined research questions, inclusion criteria, search methods, selection procedures, quality assessment, data extraction, and data analysis\u0026rdquo;(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e). The EBR approach has been shown to be able to reduce research waste to some extent(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is rarely used by authors in general medicine(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e) or physiotherapy and rehabilitation research(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong others, scientific medical journals are relevant stakeholders in implementing the EBR approach(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e) as they play an important role in avoiding research waste(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e). The Lancet already requires the justification of new studies through SRs(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e). Such recommendations apply to general medicine but are also relevant to physiotherapy. Most physiotherapy research is based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e), some of whom receive unnecessary treatment if previous trials have already shown the effects of a particular intervention and there is no question of clinical equipoise.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aim of this meta-research study was to determine the extent to which physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs) require the use of SRs for the study rationale in their author guidelines for RCTs and compare them with the author guidelines of leading journals (LJs), i.e. journals with a high impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE). It was hypothesised that PTJs would be less likely to require the EBR approach than LJs.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo provide an overview of the use of the EBR approach, author guidelines for RCTs of PTJs and LJs were systematically reviewed. PTJs were defined as journals publishing RCTs relevant to physiotherapy. To identify PTJs, three strategies were combined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a first strategy, the PEDro database(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e), which specialises in the publication of research relevant to physiotherapy, was accessed. All clinical trials referenced and published in the last five years (between January 2016 and August 2021) were extracted and organised by the journal in which they were published using an automated Microsoft Excel (version 16.70) macro tool. Journals were then ranked by the number of publications and included if at least 22 publications, including one RCT, were referenced\u003csup\u003e19\u003c/sup\u003e. The cut-off was set at 22 publications because journals were only considered relevant to physiotherapy if at least one physiotherapy-related study was published every three months.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs a second strategy, the Medline database(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) was searched via PubMed using the terms: \u0026lsquo;physiotherapy\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;physical therapy\u0026rsquo; and the filters \u0026lsquo;humans\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;clinical trial\u0026rsquo;, and \u0026lsquo;RCT\u0026rsquo;. Studies were extracted and organised using the aforementioned Excel macro tool and journals were included using the same cut-off of 22 physiotherapy-related studies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, journals in the rehabilitation category of the SCIE database(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e), with an impact factor of at least 1.0, were included. Journals in the categories \u0026lsquo;Sport Science\u0026rsquo; and \u0026lsquo;Orthopaedics\u0026rsquo; which are closely related to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, were also included if at least 10 publications (one per six months), were referenced in PEDro(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e) or PubMed(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e) according to the above criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll included journals were combined into a final list and duplicates were removed. The final list was then compared with 25 LJs. These were defined as journals with the highest impact factor in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR) in the SCIE using the \u0026lsquo;Clinical Medicine\u0026rsquo; filter.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA data extraction protocol was used in accordance with the EBR criteria to systematically search the websites of the journals. Their publication guidelines were identified by searching the homepage using the following search terms: 'author guidelines', 'information for authors', 'submission guidelines', 'reporting guidelines', 'submission checklist', 'for authors', and 'about'. In the identified section, it was determined whether journals required the use of SRs to justify a new study, whether appropriate background was required, whether no background was mentioned, or whether the journal explicitly stated that no systematic review of the literature was needed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, it was assessed if journals referred to other reporting standards which require an appropriate background. These were referrals to the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) or the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklists(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR25 CR26\" citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe following terms were searched: \u0026lsquo;background\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;rationale\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;intro\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;reporting\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;systematic review\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;consort\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;spirit\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;equator\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;icmje\u0026rsquo;, \u0026lsquo;international\u0026rsquo;. The results for the two groups, PTJs, and LJs, were then compared.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAccording to the search strategy, 12,233 clinical trials which were published in 2,024 journals were identified via the PEDro database and 21,197 clinical trials which were published in 1,994 journals were identified via PubMed. The search of the SCIE database resulted in 224 extracted PTJs. After removing duplicates, the final list contained 152 PTJs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThree PTJs were excluded from the analysis. One because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t actively publishing anymore, and two because they published in languages other than German or English. Eleven of the 25 LJs were excluded as they didn\u0026rsquo;t publish RCTs. In total, 149 PTJs were compared with 14 LJs. The full list can be found in the appendix. The journal selection process is illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;1.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eFigure 1: Flow chart for the journal selection process\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNone of the PTJs required an SR for the study rationale in their author guidelines. Four of the LJs (28.57%), all associated with The Lancet group(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e), required a prior SR of the literature. As shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, an appropriate background was required in 20.13% of the PTJs and 21.43% of the LJs. These included journals within the SAGE publishing group(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e) and Frontiers journals, which implemented a specific guideline known as VALID, where \u0026lsquo;D\u0026rsquo; represents the requirement for grounding studies in existing literature through sufficient referencing and appropriate coverage of relevant literature(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e). The majority, 79.87% of PTJs and half of all LJs examined, either did not require a literature-based background or explicitly discouraged authors from using SRs to provide a rationale for the study. No specific reason was given by these journals, most of which are part of the Elsevier publishing group(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e). Most of the PTJs (74.50%) and of the LJs (92.86%) refer to the reporting standards CONSORT or SPIRIT.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eCategory\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003ePTJs n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eLJs n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003eOverall n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;163\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSR\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003ein rationale\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSR in rationale is required\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0 (0)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (28,57)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e4 (2,45)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eappropriate background needed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30 (20,13)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3 (21,43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e33 (20,25)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003estate nothing regarding background\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e103 (69,13)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e6 (42,86)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e109 (66,87)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eexplicitly no systemic review of the literature is needed\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16 (10,74)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (7,14)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17 (10,43)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eReporting standard\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003erefer to CONSORT or SPIRIT or both\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e111 (74,50)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13 (92,86)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e124 (76,07)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003edo not refer to a reporting standard\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e38 (25,5)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1 (7,14)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e39 (23,93)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eData are presented as the number of journals in the indicated category, which comply with the findings in n (%).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe primary finding of this study is that the EBR approach, which requires the justification of new studies with SRs, is rarely implemented. This observation applies to both the author guidelines of PTJs and LJs reviewed in this study. The majority of journals analysed refer to reporting standards such as CONSORT or SPIRIT. The CONSORT statement calls for an \"adequate background\" for the rationale of new clinical trials and also states that trials should \u0026ldquo;include a reference to a systematic review of previous similar trials or a note of the absence of such trials\u0026rdquo;(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eHowever, as described in the introduction, a large number of studies show that SRs are rarely used to develop study rationales(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR13 CR14 CR15\" citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e). In physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, this applies to only one-third of all studies reviewed(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eSimply referring to reporting standards such as CONSORT, without explicitly requiring reference to SRs in the author guidelines, does not appear to be sufficient to encourage authors to comply and use SRs in their study justification. Clear requirements in author guidelines, such as those used by The Lancet, may be more likely to result in compliance with the methods described.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccording to the EBR Statement, relevant stakeholders have different responsibilities in the research process(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). While researchers should be able to prioritise research questions, taking into account all previous and ongoing research on the topic, and know how to find, evaluate and develop SRs, editors and journals should assess and evaluate whether the research is adequately described in the context of a SR(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e). Problems with placing current clinical research in the context of previous findings may indicate that editors and journals are not assessing the submitted papers critically enough and against the specifications of the author guidelines or their selected referrals to reporting standards like the CONSORT statement.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough several studies show that new clinical trials are not adequately referencing SRs, several meta-research studies show a significant increase in the total number of SRs conducted(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR33\" citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e34\u003c/span\u003e). Hoffmann et al. 2021 describe a 20-fold increase in SRs from 2000 to 2019 which also plays an important role in the production of research waste. According to Ioannidis, masses of unnecessary, misleading and contradictory SRs are being published which are unable to provide an accurate assessment of the current state of research, again highlighting the importance of knowing how to critically appraise SRs(\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis difficulty is particularly important in physiotherapy, where progress in different areas of research is uneven. While in some areas like osteoarthritis research, a series of Cochrane reviews indicate that no further research on the effects of exercise is needed(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR5 CR6\" citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e), there are multiple areas where there is hardly any data or high-quality studies yet(\u003cspan additionalcitationids=\"CR36 CR37\" citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e35\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e38\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA strength of this meta-research study is that to our knowledge this was the first study examining the EBR approach in PTJs. A limitation of this study is that only 149 PTJs were examined, so it is possible that not all journals potentially relevant to physiotherapy were captured. Additionally, PTJs were identified by looking at how many trials were published. The quality of the underlying publications wasn\u0026rsquo;t determined which could induce a bias to the relevance of certain journals to physiotherapy. Furthermore, it is possible that results were not found or were misinterpreted due to the organization of websites and the structure of author guidelines, which vary between publishers.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe aim of this meta-research study was to investigate the extent to which PTJs have implemented the EBR approach.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on the findings of this study, it is evident that the EBR approach has not been widely integrated into the author guidelines of the analysed scientific medical journals. The majority of the analysed journals refer to the CONSORT statement which requires the use of SRs for the study justification which is part of the EBR approach. Only journals associated with The Lancet explicitly require the use of SRs in their author guidelines. With regard to the hypothesis of this study, it can be concluded that PTJs require the EBR approach less than LJs. Additional measures would be necessary to effectively establish the EBR approach.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe exact results of this study are shown in the supplements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRobert Prill was member of the EU fundet project: COST Action CA17117 EVBRES and is Director of the JBI Affiliated Group Evidence Based Brandenburg in Germany, which both promote the EBR Approach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunded by the Brandenburg Medical School publication fund supported by the German Research Foundation and the Ministry of Science, Research and Cultural Affairs of the State of Brandenburg.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors' contributions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDR and RP had the idea for this work. DR, BV, and RP elaborated the methods for this study. DR analysed and interpreted the data. DR drafted the manuscript. NLR and RP were major contributors to writing the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank Stefan Rosen for the coding of the Microsoft Excel (Version 16.70) Macro Tool.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAuthors' information\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDiane Rosen\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCore staff at Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Evidence-Based Practice in Brandenburg (EBB) Affiliated Group at Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Germany\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResearch Assistant at Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMaster Student at Berlin School of Public Health, Germany\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContact: [email protected]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNils L. Reiter\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eResearch Associate at Alice Salomon University of Applied Sciences Berlin, Germany\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContact:\u003cu\u003e [email protected]\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Barbara Vogel, MPH\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSenior physiotherapist, Physical Therapy, Department of Orthopedics and Sports Orthopedics, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675 Munich, Germany\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContact : [email protected]\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003eDr. Robert Prill\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHead of Research / Center of Orthopedics and Traumatology / Center for Joint Replacement West-Brandenburg / Center of Physiotherapy at University Hospital Brandenburg/Havel\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDirector at JBI Affiliated Group EBB Affiliated Group\u0026nbsp; at Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMember of the Scientific Medical Journals (SMJ) working group EVBRES Cost Action CA17117\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eContact : [email protected]\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMaher CG, Moseley AM, Sherrington C, Elkins MR, Herbert RD. A Description of the Trials, Reviews, and Practice Guidelines Indexed in the PEDro Database. Phys Ther. 2008;88(9):1068\u0026ndash;77.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGarba S. Proliferations of Scientific Medical Journals: A Burden or A Blessing. Oman Med J [Internet]. 2010 Oct [cited 2023 Apr 12]; Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.omjournal.org/fultext_PDF.\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.omjournal.org/fultext_PDF.\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003easpx?DetailsID=34\u0026amp;type=fultext.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKim D, Hasford J. Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly. BMC Med Ethics. 2020;21(1):107.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFransen M, McConnell S, Bell M. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;2003;(3):CD004286.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFransen M, McConnell S. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. In: The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley \u0026amp; Sons, Ltd; 2008. p. CD004376.pub2. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFransen M, McConnell S, Harmer AR, Van der Esch M, Simic M, Bennell KL. Exercise for osteoarthritis of the knee. Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2015; \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD004376.pub3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVerhagen AP, Ferreira M, Reijneveld-van de Vendel EAE, Teirlinck CH, Runhaar J, van Middelkoop M, et al. Do we need another trial on exercise in patients with knee osteoarthritis? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2019;27(9):1266\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF et al. Towards evidence based research. BMJ. 2016;i5440.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:151\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLund H, Juhl C, Christensen R. Systematic reviews and research waste. The Lancet. 2016;387(10014):123\u0026ndash;4.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLund H, Juhl CB, N\u0026oslash;rgaard B, Draborg E, Henriksen M, Andreasen J, et al. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2: Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;129:158\u0026ndash;66.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAndreasen J, N\u0026oslash;rgaard B, Draborg E, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K et al. Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science\u0026mdash;A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Grzybowski A, editor. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(10):e0276955.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDraborg E, Andreasen J, N\u0026oslash;rgaard B, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K, et al. Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results\u0026mdash;a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):189.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eN\u0026oslash;rgaard B, Draborg E, Andreasen J, Juhl CB, Yost J, Brunnhuber K et al. Systematic Reviews are Rarely Used to Inform Study Design - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;S0895435622000166.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEngelking A, Cavar M, Puljak L. The use of systematic reviews to justify anaesthesiology trials: A meta-epidemiological study. Eur J Pain. 2018;22(10):1844\u0026ndash;9.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRobinson KA, Goodman SN. A Systematic Examination of the Citation of Prior Research in Reports of Randomized, Controlled Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(1):50.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoderlein X, Moseley AM, Elkins MR. Citation of prior research has increased in introduction and discussion sections with time: A survey of clinical trials in physiotherapy. Clin Trials. 2017;14(4):372\u0026ndash;80.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. 2009;374.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith R. What are medical journals for and how well do they fulfil those functions? [Internet]. The BMJ Opinion. 2016 [cited 2023 Apr 12]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/04/19/richard-smith-what-are-medical-journals-for-and-how-well-do-they-fulfil-those-functions/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/04/19/richard-smith-what-are-medical-journals-for-and-how-well-do-they-fulfil-those-functions/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLancet, RCT Author guidelines Lancet [Internet]. 2022. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/RCTguidelines-1668613849943.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/raw/Lancet/authors/RCTguidelines-1668613849943.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePEDro. PEDro homepage [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pedro.org.au\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pedro.org.au\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePubMed. PubMed homepage [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Apr 10]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJCR. SCIE Clarivate Web of Science [Internet]. 2021. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.webofscience.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.webofscience.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEQUATOR Network [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/spirit-2013-statement-defining-standard-protocol-items-for-clinical-trials/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eICMJE [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Feb 1]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.icmje.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.icmje.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSchulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, for the CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eChan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, G\u0026oslash;tzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSAGE. SAGE homepage [Internet]. 2021. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://journals.sagepub.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://journals.sagepub.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFrontiers. Frontiers homepage [Internet]. 2021. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.frontiersin.org\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.frontiersin.org\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eElsevier. Elsevier homepage [Internet]. 2022. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.elsevier.com/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.elsevier.com/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCONSORT- Guidance for reporting a randomised trial [Internet]. 2023. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.goodreports.org/reporting-checklists/consort/info/#2a\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.goodreports.org/reporting-checklists/consort/info/#2a\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIoannidis JPA. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485\u0026ndash;514.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000\u0026ndash;2019. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Der Braak K, Ghannad M, Orelio C, Heus P, Damen JAA, Spijker R, et al. The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):191.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAledi B, Flumignan L, Trevisani CD, Miranda VF Jr. F. Interventions for motor rehabilitation in people with transtibial amputation due to peripheral arterial disease or diabetes. Cochrane Vascular Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2023 Jun 5 [cited 2023 Aug 18];2023(6). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013711.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013711.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMomosaki R, Tsuboi M, Yasufuku Y, Furudate K, Kamo T, Uda K, et al. Conclusiveness of Cochrane Reviews in physiotherapy: a systematic search and analytical review. Int J Rehabil Res. 2019;42(2):97\u0026ndash;105.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNascimento Leite M, Kamper SJ, O\u0026rsquo;Connell NE, Michaleff ZA, Fisher E, Viana Silva P et al. Physical activity and education about physical activity for chronic musculoskeletal pain in children and adolescents. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2023 Jul 13 [cited 2023 Aug 18];2023(7). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013527.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013527.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmart KM, Wand BM, O\u0026rsquo;Connell NE. Physiotherapy for pain and disability in adults with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) types I and II. Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group, editor. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016 Feb 24 [cited 2023 Aug 18];2016(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD010853.pub2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"evidence-based research (EBR), physiotherapy, physical therapy, scientific medical journals, publication guidelines, author guidelines, evidence-based practice (EBP), meta research","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3275502/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3275502/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground:\u003c/strong\u003e The Evidence-Based Research (EBR) approach requires authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature. Adhering to this approach prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. \u0026nbsp;To promote the adoption of this approach, scientific medical journals could include the EBR approach in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is particularly relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eObjective:\u003c/strong\u003e The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the EBR approach is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and leading journals (LJs), i.e. scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods:\u003c/strong\u003e 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. The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that new studies should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 LJs, which were identified by their impact factor in the SCIE.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify new trials. Among LJs, four journals (28,57%) required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion:\u003c/strong\u003e Neither PTJs nor LJs have adopted the EBR approach in their author guidelines. Further efforts are needed to establish the implementation.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Evidence-Based Research approach for conducting new studies in physiotherapy research. A meta-research study comparing author guidelines of physiotherapy-related journals to those of leading journals with the highest impact factor","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2023-08-30 14:08:25","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3275502/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Minor revision","date":"2023-11-06T09:38:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2023-08-28T07:45:40+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2023-08-25T11:03:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2023-08-25T09:24:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Systematic Reviews","date":"2023-08-22T11:09:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"systematic-reviews","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"sysr","sideBox":"Learn more about [Systematic Reviews](http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/sysr/default.aspx","title":"Systematic Reviews","twitterHandle":"@MedicalEvidence","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"74bf605c-e54b-4096-8891-5080e630830c","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 30th, 2023","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-01-15T15:04:59+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-3275502","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02427-7","journal":{"identity":"systematic-reviews","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Systematic Reviews"},"publishedOn":"2024-01-13 15:01:00","publishedOnDateReadable":"January 13th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2023-08-30 14:08:25","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13643-023-02427-7","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02427-7","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3275502","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3275502","identity":"rs-3275502","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"_2-kVJe1T_tPrBINL-cwx","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}