Rehabilitation Teaching and Research Unit, Department of Medicine, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, PNS Shifa Hospital, DHA-II, Karachi, Pakistan.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 Aug;100(8):1492-1498. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2019.01.021. Epub 2019 Mar 2.
To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library.
We built an online relational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation's social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed.
We identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions.
Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.
确定 Cochrane 图书馆中所有与康复实践范围相关的已发表方案和综述;测试实用标准以确定康复干预措施;根据提供干预措施的专业人员和广泛的临床实践领域开始对综述进行分类。
Cochrane 系统评价数据库。
我们筛选了 Cochrane 图书馆中所有已发表的综述和方案。
我们建立了一个在线关系数据库,将 1996 年至 2018 年 8 月期间发表在 Cochrane 图书馆中的所有综述和方案的标题和摘要导入其中。我们通过 Cochrane Rehabilitation 的社交媒体在全球范围内招募康复专业人员,以在该数据库中找到并标记康复综述。一名康复医生和一名联合健康专业人员独立地根据预设标准对每个标题进行标记。Cochrane Rehabilitation 评论委员会审查了评论员之间的分歧,以确定如何对评论进行分类存在任何不确定性。随着工作的进展,我们修订并改进了我们最初用于确定康复干预措施的标准。
我们发现,9.4%的 Cochrane 出版物(894/9471 篇综述和方案)直接与康复实践相关。干预措施最常成为康复综述和方案主题的专业群体是康复医生和物理治疗师。我们还确定了康复干预措施综述的最终纳入和排除标准清单。
许多 Cochrane 综述直接与康复相关。Cochrane 需要将康复社区视为其所有工作的主要利益相关者之一。我们测试的实用标准是为全球利益相关者就康复干预措施的识别和分类进行未来讨论提供的。这项工作将支持 Cochrane 图书馆内容向康复专业人员的传播,并指导未来的研究。