Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Masters and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Braz J Phys Ther. 2021 May-Jun;25(3):233-241. doi: 10.1016/j.bjpt.2020.10.002. Epub 2020 Nov 11.
Abstracts of systematic reviews (SR) are frequently used to guide clinical decision-making. However, if the abstract is inadequately reported, key information may be missing and it may not accurately summarize the results of the review.
We aimed to investigate 1) if abstracts are fully reported; 2) if abstract reporting is associated with review/journal characteristics in physical therapy for low back pain (LBP); and 3) if these abstracts are consistent with the corresponding full texts.
We searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database for SRs in physical therapy for LBP published between 2015 and 2017. Associations between abstract reporting quality and review/journal characteristics were explored with linear regression. Abstract reporting was assessed with the 12 item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for abstracts (PRISMA-A) checklist. Consistency of reporting between abstracts and the full text was evaluated by comparing responses to each item of the PRISMA-A using Kappa coefficients. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2).
We included 66 SRs, 9 Cochrane and 57 non-Cochrane. Review methodological quality ranged from 'high' (8%) to 'critically low' (76%). The mean ± SD of the "total number of PRISMA-A fully reported items" (range 0-12 points for fully reported items) was 4.1 ± 1.9 points for non-Cochrane review abstracts and 9.9 ± 1.1 points for Cochrane abstracts. Factors associated with reporting quality of abstracts were: journal impact factor (ß 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06, 0.35), number of words in abstract (ß 0.01; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.01) and review methodological quality ('critically low' with ß -3.06; 95% CI: -5.30, -0.82; with 'high' as reference variable). There was typically inconsistent reporting between abstract and full text, with most Kappa values lower than 0.60.
The abstracts of SRs in physical therapy for LBP were poorly reported and inconsistent with the full text. The reporting quality of abstracts was higher in journals with a higher impact factor, in abstracts with a greater number of words, and when the review was of higher methodological quality.
系统评价（SR）的摘要经常被用于指导临床决策。然而，如果摘要报告不充分，可能会遗漏关键信息，并且无法准确总结综述的结果。
我们旨在调查 1）摘要是否充分报告；2）在物理治疗腰痛（LBP）中，摘要报告与综述/期刊特征之间是否存在关联；3）这些摘要与相应的全文是否一致。
我们在 2015 年至 2017 年间，从 Physiotherapy Evidence Database 中检索了关于物理治疗腰痛的 SR。我们通过线性回归探讨了摘要报告质量与综述/期刊特征之间的关联。我们使用 12 项针对系统评价和荟萃分析摘要的 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses（PRISMA-A）清单评估了摘要报告情况。我们通过比较 PRISMA-A 各项目的回答，用 Kappa 系数评估了摘要和全文之间的报告一致性。我们使用 A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews（AMSTAR-2）评估了综述的方法学质量。
我们纳入了 66 项 SR，其中 9 项为 Cochrane 综述，57 项为非 Cochrane 综述。综述的方法学质量从“高”（8%）到“极低”（76%）不等。非 Cochrane 综述摘要的“PRISMA-A 完全报告项目的总分”（0-12 分，完全报告项目）的平均值±标准差为 4.1±1.9 分，Cochrane 摘要的分数为 9.9±1.1 分。与摘要报告质量相关的因素包括：期刊影响因子（ß0.20；95%CI：0.06，0.35）、摘要字数（ß0.01；95%CI：0.00，0.01）和综述的方法学质量（“极低”为-3.06；95%CI：-5.30，-0.82；以“高”为参考变量）。摘要和全文之间的报告通常不一致，大多数 Kappa 值低于 0.60。
物理治疗腰痛的 SR 摘要报告质量较差，与全文不一致。高影响因子的期刊、摘要字数较多的综述以及方法学质量较高的综述，其摘要报告质量较高。
