Applying Evidence Standards to Rehabilitation Research

Mark V. Johnston · Mark Sherer · John Whyte

57 citations0/0 files storedAmerican Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Health Sciences Research and Education Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe evidence grading methods employed in the systematic reviews in this special series of articles. To provide an overview of results of these reviews to critique the quality of rehabilitation research. To identify issues in the application of evidence grading methods to rehabilitation. DESIGN: Conceptual review of evidence-based practice and evidence grading methods. English-language research studies on rehabilitation of persons with spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and burn for the 5-yr period of 1999-2004 were reviewed using methods of the American Academy of Neurology supplemented by Cochrane criteria and summarized. RESULTS: Rehabilitation has a shortage of high-level studies. The number of level 1 treatment studies was quite limited (five in spinal cord injury, 15 in traumatic brain injury, 12 in burn rehabilitation), as was the number of level 2 studies (26, 4, and 2, respectively). Despite the large number of correlational studies published, the number of high-level (1 or 2) diagnostic and prognostic studies was surprisingly limited (34, 11, and 5, respectively). The rate of production of high-level studies is rapidly increasing. Problems were encountered in applying standard evidence criteria to complex issues encountered in some studies, suggesting limitations and issues in evidence grading methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation needs more high-level studies. Some improvements in research methodology are relatively affordable (e.g., improved blinding), whereas others are expensive (e.g., large randomized controlled trials). Lower-level investigations reporting promising results need to be followed by more definitive, higher-level trials.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 57 citations exist upstream.

References

1998Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 1963Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research 1996Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine 2000Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs 1995Causal Analysis with Panel Data 2003Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials 2020Causal Analysis With Panel Data 1998Causality and Explanation

Cited by

2012Toward Improved Evidence Standards and Methods for Rehabilitation: Recommendations and Challenges 2018The Struggle for Evidence in Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine 2014Issues affecting the level of prosthetics research evidence 2010Do Unblinded Assessors Bias Muscle Strength Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Progressive Resistance Strength Training in Older Adults?2012Conducting Systematic Evidence Reviews: Core Concepts and Lessons Learned

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.