Methodological Quality of Motor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials in Stroke Rehabilitation

Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 248-253

  McIntyre, Amanda ^a   Campbell, Nerissa ^a   Vermeer, Julianne ^a   Mays, Rachel ^a   Janzen, Shannon ^a   Teasell, Robert ^a,b,c  

^a LAWSON HEALTH RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b Mental Health Care Building   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO   (Canada)

Author keywords

intervention; motor; randomized controlled trial; rehabilitation; Stroke; therapy

Indexed keywords

BOTULINUM TOXIN; CORTICOSTEROID; STEROID;

ACUPUNCTURE; ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; ELECTROSTIMULATION; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; MOTOR PERFORMANCE; NERVE BLOCK; PEDRO; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TRANSCRANIAL MAGNETIC STIMULATION; VIRTUAL REALITY; FACTUAL DATABASE; METHODOLOGY; PHYSIOTHERAPY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); STANDARDS; STROKE REHABILITATION;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; HUMANS; PHYSICAL THERAPY MODALITIES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 84959340311     PISSN: 10523057     EISSN: 15328511     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2015.09.024     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. A. McIntyre, M. Richardson, S. Janzen, and et al. The evolution of stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials Int J Stroke 9 2014 789 792
2. D. Moher, D.J. Cook, S. Eastwood, and et al. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement Lancet 354 1999 1896 1900
3. B. Shea, G.M. Grimshaw, G.A. Wells, and et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews BMC Med Res Methodol 7 2007 1 7
4. S. Downs, and N. Black The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions J Epidemiol Community Health 52 1998 377 384
5. S.A. Olivo, L.G. Macedo, I.C. Gadotti, and et al. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review Phys Ther 88 2008 156 175
6. P. Blobaum Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) J Med Libr Assoc 94 2006 477 478
7. A.P. Verhagen, H.C. de Vet, R.A. de Bie, and et al. The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus J Clin Epidemiol 51 1998 1235 1241
8. C. Maher, C. Sherrington, R.D. Herbert, and et al. Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials Phys Ther 83 2003 713 721
9. N.A. de Morton The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study Aust J Physiother 55 2009 129 133
10. PEDro statistics [Internet] cited 2014 April 24; Available from: http://www.pedro.org.au/english/downloads/pedro-statistics/ 2015
11. R. Teasell, L. Allen, and N. Hussein Evidence based review of stroke rehabilitation [Internet] 2014 Lawson Health Research Institute (Canada) London (ON) Available at: http://www.ebrsr.com/ Accessed April 24, 2014
12. N.C. Foley, R.W. Teasell, S.K. Bhogal, and et al. Stroke rehabilitation evidence-based review: methodology Top Stroke Rehabil 10 2003 1 7
13. M.R. Elkins, A.M. Moseley, C. Sherrington, and et al. Growth in the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and use of the PEDro scale Br J Sports Med 47 2013 188 189
14. S.F. Armijo-Olivo, J. Fuentes, M. Ospina, and et al. Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis BMC Med Res Methodol 13 2013 116
15. R.Z. Pinto, M.R. Elkins, A.M. Moseley, and et al. Many randomized trials of physical therapy interventions are not adequately registered: a survey of 200 published trials Phys Ther 93 2013 299 309
16. C.C.M. Begg, S. Eastwood, R. Horton, and et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement JAMA 276 1996 637 639
17. K.F. Schulz, D.G. Altman, D. Moher, and et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials BMC Med 8 2010 726 732
18. L.S.L. Turner, D.G. Altman, K.F. Schulz, and et al. Does use of the CONSORT Statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review Cochrane Database Syst Rev 29 2012 60
19. L. Chan, A.W. Heinemann, and J. Roberts Elevating the quality of disability and rehabilitation research: mandatory use of the reporting guidelines Am J Occup Ther 68 2014 127 129
20. V.M. Montori, M. Bhandari, P.J. Devereaux, and et al. In the dark: the reporting of blinding status in randomized controlled trials J Clin Epidemiol 55 2002 787 790
21. R.D.B. Mhaskar, A. Magazin, H.P. Soares, and et al. Published methodological quality of randomized controlled trials does not reflect the actual quality assessed in protocols J Clin Epidemiol 65 2012 602 609
22. L. Wood, K.F. Eggelz, P. Juni, and et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study BMJ 336 2008 601