↓ Skip to main content

Ethics reporting practices in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Archives of Physiotherapy, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
11 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Ethics reporting practices in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke
Published in
Archives of Physiotherapy, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40945-018-0049-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Francesco Ferrarello, Matteo Viligiardi, Mauro Di Bari

Abstract

Adequate reporting of ethics-related research methods promotes convergence on best ethics practices. In physical therapy, studies on ethics reporting are limited to few aspects, and none focuses on stroke research. Our objectives were to investigate the reporting of multiple ethics-related features and its variation over time, and the characteristics of the studies associated with ethics reporting in Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) of physical therapy interventions after stroke. A random sample of RCTs published in the years 2004, 2009 and 2014, was extracted from the PubMed database, regardless of the publishing journal. For each trial we investigated year of publication, trial registration, sample size, stroke subtype, phase of the disease, setting, interventions and dosing, outcome measures, outcome of the study, PEDro score and 5-year impact factor of the publishing journal. Reporting of ethics-related issues was analyzed. Differences between groups were examined. Multiple regression was used to evaluate the relationship between ethics-related issues reporting and some studies' characteristics. Eighty studies were reviewed. Groups differed in the proportion of registered trials (p = .009), 5-year impact factor (p = .011), assessment of cognitive capacity (p = .049), declaration about conflict of interest (p < .001), and number of ethics-related issues reported (p = .009). The proportion of issues reported ranged from 92.5% (consent obtaining) to 0% (eventual follow up care). Post-hoc comparisons showed significantly greater reporting of ethics issues in trials published in the year 2014 compared to 2004 (p = .014, 95%CI = 0.40/4.26). Year of publication and PEDro score were significant predictors of adequate reporting. Authors, editors, and reviewers should be more rigorous and demanding about the reporting of ethic-related methods in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions after stroke.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 11 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 64%
Student > Bachelor 2 18%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 9%
Neuroscience 1 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 November 2018.
All research outputs
#10,476,487
of 13,745,552 outputs
Outputs from Archives of Physiotherapy
#50
of 52 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,085
of 270,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Archives of Physiotherapy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,745,552 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 52 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,928 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them