Types and quality of physical therapy research publications: has there been a change in the past decade?

Bibliometric analysis of core journals which publish articles of physical therapy on aging

OBJECTIVE

Increase in population's longevity has led to considerable efforts worldwide on physical therapy aging research. The aim of this study is to identify which are the main scientific journals, as well as the most productive authors, institutions and keywords related to the journals, that have published about physical therapy and aging.

METHODS

Original articles published from 1990 to 2014 were retrieved from the bibliographic database Science Citation Index Expanded of Web of Science Core Collection. After standardization of the bibliographic information, a series of bibliometric indicators was obtained regarding authors, institutions, citation and keywords of the core journals using bibliometric software. The PAJEK network analysis program was used for graphic representation.

RESULTS

A total of 2,237 original articles are included in this analysis. The number of identified journals is 573, with an average growth of publishing journals throughout the studied period of 9.41%. Bradford's distribution shows 12 core journals, out of which 41.67% have published constantly all throughout the 25-year period, being the most productive one Physical Therapy. Fritz, Julie M is the most productive author, and University of Sydney the most productive institution. The keyword exercise is used in an outstanding way.

CONCLUSIONS

The productivity trends provided an indication of the greater scientific interest of physical therapy in aging as a line of research. Collectively, the data indicated that physical therapy-specific journals are being consolidated but non-specific are still a significant research source, and that a fundamental element of their research includes exercise and movement.

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.

Study protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation scoping reviews

INTRODUCTION

Scoping reviews are increasingly popular in rehabilitation. However, significant variability in scoping review conduct and reporting currently exists, limiting potential for the methodology to advance rehabilitation research, practice and policy. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review of rehabilitation scoping reviews in order to examine the current volume, yearly distribution, proportion, scope and methodological practices involved in the conduct of scoping reviews in rehabilitation. Key areas of methodological improvement will be described. Methods and analysis: We will undertake the review using the Arksey and O'Malley scoping review methodology. Our search will involve two phases. The first will combine a previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (not distinct to rehabilitation, with data current to July 2014) together with a rehabilitation keyword search in PubMed. Articles found in the first phase search will undergo a full text review. The second phase will include an update of the previously conducted scoping review of scoping reviews (July 2014 to current). This update will include the search of nine electronic databases, followed by title and abstract screening as well as a full text review. All screening and extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Articles will be included if they are scoping reviews within the field of rehabilitation. A consultation exercise with key targets will inform plans to improve rehabilitation scoping reviews. Ethics and dissemination: Ethics will be required for the consultation phase of our scoping review. Dissemination will include peer-reviewed publication and conferences in rehabilitation-specific contexts.

Growth and Consequences

In response to the growth of JOSPT, Editor-in-Chief J. Haxby Abbott introduces 3 new Associate Editors to the JOSPT Editorial Board, and announces the promotion of 1 outstanding Editorial Board member to an Editor role. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(8):610-612. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.0111.