Department of Physical Therapy, Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio Mesquita Filho, Presidente Prudente, SP, Brazil.
Centre for Education & Workforce Development, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Braz J Phys Ther. 2019 Jul-Aug;23(4):302-310. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2018.10.004. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
To assess the prevalence of the use of 95% confidence intervals in the reporting of between-group differences in randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions and to determine if the prevalence is changing over time.
Observational study, including an analysis of 200 trials from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database: 50 from each of the years 1986, 1996, 2006, and 2016. The primary outcome used was the prevalence of the between-group difference presented with 95% confidence intervals. We also extracted trial characteristics for descriptive purposes (i.e., number of participants, number of sites involved in recruitment, country(ies) of data collection, funding, subdiscipline of physical therapy, publication language and total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score).
Most commonly, the trials were published in English (89%) and classified in the musculoskeletal subdiscipline (23%). The overall prevalence of use of confidence intervals was 29% and there was a consistent increase in reporting between 1986 and 2016, with peak usage in the 2016 cohort (42%). Confidence intervals were more likely to be used in trials that had received funding, were conducted in Europe and Oceania, and in trials with a Physiotherapy Evidence Database score of at least 6/10.
Most trials of physical therapy interventions do not report confidence intervals around between-group differences. However, use of confidence intervals is increasing steadily, especially among high-quality trials. Physical therapists must understand confidence intervals so that they can understand a growing number of trials in physical therapy.
评估物理治疗干预随机对照试验报告中组间差异的 95%置信区间使用情况的流行率,并确定其是否随时间变化。
观察性研究,包括对 Physiotherapy Evidence Database 中 200 项试验的分析:1986 年、1996 年、2006 年和 2016 年各 50 项。主要结果是使用置信区间呈现的组间差异的流行率。我们还提取了试验特征用于描述性目的(即参与者数量、参与招募的地点数量、数据收集的国家/地区、资金、物理治疗亚专业、出版语言和 Physiotherapy Evidence Database 总评分)。
大多数试验以英语发表(89%),并归入肌肉骨骼亚专业(23%)。使用置信区间的总体流行率为 29%,1986 年至 2016 年期间报告呈持续增加趋势,2016 年队列的使用率最高(42%)。有资金、在欧洲和大洋洲进行、Physiotherapy Evidence Database 评分至少为 6/10 的试验更有可能使用置信区间。
大多数物理治疗干预试验没有报告组间差异的置信区间。然而,置信区间的使用正在稳步增加,尤其是在高质量试验中。物理治疗师必须了解置信区间,以便能够理解越来越多的物理治疗试验。