Content and bibliometric analyses of the Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

Mapping the field of physical therapy and identification of the leading active producers. A bibliometric analysis of the period 2000- 2018

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of the study were: 1) Describe the thematic structure and evolution of the field of physical therapy; 2) identify the main research producers (i.e. countries and institutions); and 3) compare their research output and citation impact.

METHODS

Papers related to physical therapy indexed in Web of Science (2000-2018) were identified to delineate the field, using keywords, journals, and citation networks. VOSviewer software, advanced bibliometric text mining, and visualization techniques were used to evaluate the thematic structure. We collected data about the country and institutional affiliation of all the authors and calculated production and citation impact indicators.

RESULTS

85,697 papers were analyzed. Eleven thematic clusters were identified: 1) "health care and education"; 2) "biomechanics"; 3) "psychosocial, chronic pain and quality of life outcomes"; 4) "evidence-based physical therapy research methods"; 5) "traumatology and orthopedics"; 6) "neurological rehabilitation"; 7) "psychometrics and cross-cultural adaptation"; 8) "gait-balance analysis and Parkinson's disease"; 9) "exercise"; 10) "respiratory physical therapy"; and 11) "back pain." The United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia were the most productive countries. Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden had the highest citation impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Our bibliometric visualization approach makes it possible to comprehensively study the thematic structure of physical therapy. The ranking of producers has evolved and now includes China and Brazil. High research production does not imply a high citation impact.

Evolving Trends in Physiotherapy Research Publications between 1995 and 2015

Purpose: The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze evolving trends in physiotherapy (PT) research publications (excluding case reports and epidemiological and qualitative studies) between 1995 and 2015, inclusively in terms of research design, funding support, age groups, and health conditions. Method: This was an observational study using PubMed-indexed data. Combinations of medical subject headings identified yearly research publications for PT and comparator fields: human-based health and physical rehabilitation. Yearly publications data were extracted, relative percentages were computed, and linear or exponential regressions examined the yearly growth in the proportion of research publications over these 2 decades. Results: As a percentage of human-based health research publications, PT research publications grew exponentially: from 0.54% in 1995 to 2.37% in 2015 (r² = 0.97; p < 0.01). As a percentage of physical rehabilitation research publications, PT research grew from 38.2% in 1995 to 58.7% in 2015 (r² = 0.89; p < 0.01). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) resulted in the majority of PT research publications (from 45.1% in 1995 to 59.4% in 2015; r² = 0.79; p < 0.01). Rates of declared funding increased (from 29.7% in 1995 to 57% in 2015; r² = 0.83; p < 0.01), but the comparator fields had similar growth. The percentage of PT research publications remained stable for most health conditions and age groups, decreased for those aged 0-18 years (p = 0.012) and for cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions (both p < 0.01), and increased for neoplasms (p < 0.01). Conclusions: PT research publications have become more prevalent among health and physical rehabilitation research publications; the majority of publications report on RCTs.

Where We Have Been and Where We Are Going: A Content Analysis of Articles Published in the Journal of Women's Health Physical Therapy From 2005 to 2015

Objective

The objective of this study was to examine the type and content of Journal of Women's Health Physical Therapy (JWHPT) publications over the last decade.

Study Design

Content and bibliometric analysis of published literature.

Background

Component sections, such as the Section on Women's Health (SoWH) of the American Physical Therapy Association provide content expertise to areas of specialty physical therapist practice, thereby supporting the dissemination of evidence for physical therapists to use. Closely aligned with the mission of the SoWH, JWHPT provides evidence reflecting this practice area. The purpose of our analysis was to examine publications within JWHPT to determine how closely JWHPT is meeting the mission and focus of section members.

Methods and Measures

We used established bibliographic methodology to code and review manuscripts published online between 2005 and 2015 in JWHPT using established domains (article type, participant type, research design, study purpose, and area of focus). Total publications and proportion of publications based on domain were described. Impact by citation and author was examined using bibliometric software.

Results

Eighteen percent of the items published in JWHPT were original research papers submitted for the first time. Of those papers, the primary study design was cross-sectional experimental research, most commonly studying interventions. The primary practice area reported was management of incontinence.

Conclusions

We suggest that a continued need to increase efforts for the submission and publication of a greater proportion of randomized controlled trials and metric articles.

Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

Growing evidence points for the need to publish study protocols in the health field. The aim of this paper was to observe whether the growing interest in publishing study protocols in the broader health field has been translated into increased publications of rehabilitation study protocols.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

PubMed was searched with appropriate combinations of Medical Subject Headings up to December 2014. The effective presence of study protocols was manually screened. Regression models analyzed the yearly growth of publications. Two-sample Z-tests analyzed whether the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among study protocols differed from that of the same designs for the broader rehabilitation research.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Up to December 2014, 746 publications of rehabilitation study protocols were identified, with an exponential growth since 2005 (r2=0.981; P<0.001). RCT protocols were the most common among rehabilitation study protocols (83%), while RCTs were significantly more prevalent among study protocols than among the broader rehabilitation research (83% vs. 35.8%; P<0.001). For SRs, the picture was reversed: significantly less common among study protocols (2.8% vs. 9.3%; P<0.001). Funding was more often reported by rehabilitation study protocols than the broader rehabilitation research (90% vs. 53.1%; P<0.001). Rehabilitation journals published a significantly lower share of rehabilitation study protocols than they did for the broader rehabilitation research (1.8% vs.16.7%; P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Identifying the reasons for these discrepancies and reverting unwarranted disparities (e.g. low rate of publication for rehabilitation SR protocols) are likely new avenues for rehabilitation research and its publication. SRs, particularly those aggregating RCT results, are considered the best standard of evidence to guide rehabilitation clinical practice; however, that standard can be improved in rigor and/or transparency if the publications of rehabilitation SRs protocols become more common.