Skip to main content
PMC home page
Physiotherapy Canada logoLink to Physiotherapy Canada
. 2020 Spring;72(2):122–131. doi: 10.3138/ptc-2018-0065

Evolving Trends in Physiotherapy Research Publications between 1995 and 2015

Tiago S Jesus *, Silvia Gianola †,‡, Greta Castellini ‡,§, Heather Colquhoun ¶,**, Dina Brooks **,††,‡‡
PMCID: PMC7238935  PMID: 32494096

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze evolving trends in physiotherapy (PT) research publications (excluding case reports and epidemiological and qualitative studies) between 1995 and 2015, inclusively in terms of research design, funding support, age groups, and health conditions. Method: This was an observational study using PubMed-indexed data. Combinations of medical subject headings identified yearly research publications for PT and comparator fields: human-based health and physical rehabilitation. Yearly publications data were extracted, relative percentages were computed, and linear or exponential regressions examined the yearly growth in the proportion of research publications over these 2 decades. Results: As a percentage of human-based health research publications, PT research publications grew exponentially: from 0.54% in 1995 to 2.37% in 2015 (r² = 0.97; p < 0.01). As a percentage of physical rehabilitation research publications, PT research grew from 38.2% in 1995 to 58.7% in 2015 (r² = 0.89; p < 0.01). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) resulted in the majority of PT research publications (from 45.1% in 1995 to 59.4% in 2015; r² = 0.79; p < 0.01). Rates of declared funding increased (from 29.7% in 1995 to 57% in 2015; r² = 0.83; p < 0.01), but the comparator fields had similar growth. The percentage of PT research publications remained stable for most health conditions and age groups, decreased for those aged 0–18 years (p = 0.012) and for cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions (both p < 0.01), and increased for neoplasms (p < 0.01). Conclusions: PT research publications have become more prevalent among health and physical rehabilitation research publications; the majority of publications report on RCTs.

Key Words: Medical Subject Headings, publications, PubMed, randomized controlled trials as topic

In the human health field, the quantity of research publications is growing at a rapid rate. Jesus reported, for example, that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) grew by an average of 6% each year between 2001 and 2013, whereas systematic reviews (SRs) for the same time period grew by 19% per year.1 Page and colleagues reported a three-fold increase in SRs in the health field between 2004 and 2014.2

In the physical rehabilitation field, research publications have also increased. Mimouni and colleagues observed a linear increase in the number of publications between 1998 and 2013, with multiplication factors of 3.3 and 2.9, respectively, for adult and paediatric literature.3 Jesus found that between 2001 and 2013, the average yearly growth of published SRs and RCTs was higher for rehabilitation than for the broader health field (SRs: 20.2% versus 18.9%; RCTs: 12.3% versus 6.0%).1

Rehabilitation has also seen an increase in physiotherapy (PT) research publications over time. For example, the number of RCTs focusing on rehabilitation for mechanical low back pain has risen consistently over each of the past 5 decades.4 Using data from the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro; a comprehensive repository of PT-related trials, SRs, and evidence-based practice guidelines), Kamper and colleagues reported an exponential growth in the number of articles indexed.5 As of October 2014, 28,600 PT-related research articles had been published (80.6% RCTs, 17.6% SRs, and 1.8% clinical practice guidelines).5

Researchers have also examined PT publication trends for specific, or groups of, physiotherapy journals,6–10 often over time. For example, a study of 30 years of the journal Physical Therapy found an increase in research-based articles and a decrease in non-SRs and articles focused on anatomy or physiology.7 Ways in which articles in PT journals are distributed across health conditions and across age groups have also been examined.9,10

The aim of this study was to comparatively examine changing trends in PT research publications between 1995 and 2015. We concentrated on the relative growth of these publications in the broader human-based health and physical rehabilitation fields, changes in research design, funding support, and focus on age groups and conditions.

Methods

Search strategy and data collection

For this analysis, we used the PubMed database (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) and the indexing system for its largest sub-component (MEDLINE). Although not exhaustive, PubMed is a comprehensive research database. In the health field, there is evidence that adding searches of other databases to a PubMed search had only a modest impact on the number of SRs found.11 In a sample of PT-relevant RCTs, PubMed indexed 89%; EMBASE, 88%; PEDro, 92%; and CENTRAL, 95%.12 We used PubMed because it could provide the data needed for both PT and comparator fields, is frequently used by physiotherapists who seek research information to support clinical decisions, and is freely accessible.13

In PubMed, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) are organized in a hierarchical tree and assigned to each paper by trained indexers. Therefore, articles are systematically indexed by research topic regardless of the key words identified by the authors. This system has been used to examine publication trends and changes in their focus over time for different health fields, including rehabilitation.1,3,14–18 In this study, we used a similar approach: we did not manually screen PubMed entries for content or methodology but fully relied on the PubMed indexing system. This strategy was applied to both PT research publications and those of the comparator fields because both had been indexed in the same way – that is, under the same MeSH tree and using the same systematic indexing process carried out by trained personnel.

To inform the PubMed search strategy, we created the following key working definitions and mapped them onto the controlled vocabulary thesaurus of the MeSH tree:19

  • Human-based health research: all PubMed-indexed research conducted with humans, as opposed to that conducted only with animals.

  • Physical rehabilitation: rehabilitation services provided by qualified rehabilitation professionals (physical, occupational, and speech therapists, etc.) to optimize daily and social functioning in people with physical impairments (e.g., impaired mobility, cognition, communication) or symptoms associated with, or secondary to, a physical injury or disease, including neurobehavioral sequelae or associated mental health issues (e.g., post-stroke depression).20–24 Services and care focused on the rehabilitation of oral, mental health, or substance abuse conditions or sensory impairments were excluded.

  • PT: services and care provided to humans by physiotherapists or their qualified assistants or focused on PT intervention techniques, irrespective of the setting in which the service is provided.

  • Research publications: a set of study designs that systematically evaluate intervention effects (e.g., clinical trials), synthesize knowledge, empirically validate evaluation or intervention tools, or refer to practice guidelines. Case reports and epidemiological and qualitative research publications have a different scope and were not included in this working definition; therefore, they are not examined in this paper.

The online Appendix describes the final search filters we used for the MeSH terms for PT and the comparator fields, research designs (we first searched all research publications, then RCTs and SRs separately), funding support, age groups and health conditions.

In addition to the working definitions, these search filters were informed by previous research. For instance, for the broader rehabilitation field, we used published search filters1,3,25,26 but adapted them to match the definition of physical rehabilitation – for example, MeSH terms related to mental health were added to the exclusion criteria (using the Boolean operator NOT). For research designs, we used a published combination of search terms to detect SRs;26 the MeSH tree did not include SRs as a publication type up to 2019. Similarly, for funding support, we replicated a previously published search filter.26 Finally, health conditions previously analyzed for rehabilitation publication trends in PubMed were selected and (re-)grouped as those most likely to be addressed by PT interventions, as decided by the research team.1

On the basis of these approaches, we conducted target searches in PubMed. We first ran a pilot search with the PT search filter defined either as a major topic or as a simple MeSH term. Although the pattern of results (e.g., relative growth) was similar for both searches, we proceeded with the final searches using PT search terms defined as a major topic. This approach allowed us to capture PT-focused research, rather than research related to PT more broadly, while applying the same strategy to the comparators.

We conducted final searches in December 2017 but narrowed down the range of publication dates to the period from January 1, 1995, to December 31, 2015, to (1) account for the typical 2-year delay in PubMed indexing, (2) capture recent publication trends, and (3) account for the fact that publication types have been systematically indexed in PubMed only since 1991.

Data extraction and analysis

From each search, the yearly volume of publications was imported into Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) spreadsheets, in which we computed the percentages of the records (e.g., percentage of RCTs among physiotherapy research publications). Because our purpose was to conduct a comparative analysis, all data were analyzed and reported in relative percentages, not in number of publications. We used run charts and then linear or exponential regression models, according to best fit (determined by r2 values and visual examination), to analyze any changes in the percentages over the time period studied. We present results only for the models that showed the best fit, whether linear or exponential regression models. If the fit was similar for the linear and exponential models, we retained the linear ones.

For linear regression analysis, we performed t-tests of the slope value to observe whether yearly growth in the percentages of the publications was statistically significant. We performed the same analysis for the exponential regression models, but for log-transformed observations. We considered p < 0.05 to be statistically significant.

Results

Relative growth of physiotherapy research publications

The number of PT research publications grew exponentially as a percentage of all human-based research in PubMed (from 0.5% in 1995 to 2.4% in 2015; r2 = 0.97; p < 0.01; Figure 1). Similarly, the number of PT research publications grew exponentially as a percentage of all physical rehabilitation research publications (from 38.2% in 1995 to 58.7% in 2015; r² = 0.89; p < 0.01; Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Yearly percentages of PT research publications among all human-based health research publications in PubMed, 1995–2015.

Figure 1

Note: The dotted line represents the exponential regression model.

PT = physiotherapy; Expon. = exponential.

Open in a new tab

Figure 2.

Yearly percentages of PT research publications among physical rehabilitation research publications in PubMed, 1995–2015.

Figure 2

Note: The dotted line represents the exponential regression model.

PT = physiotherapy; Expon. = exponential.

Open in a new tab

Research design

As a percentage of all PT research publications, RCTs and SRs increased linearly over time (for RCTs, from 45.1% in 1995 to 59.4% in 2015; r² = 0.79; p < 0.01; and for SRs, from 0% in 1995 to 14.6% in 2015; r² = 0.95; p < 0.01). As of 2015, RCTs and SRs combined represented 74% of PT research publications, compared with 45% in 1995 (Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Yearly percentages of RCTs and SRs among physiotherapy research publications, 1995–2015.

Figure 3

Note: The dotted lines represent the linear regression models.

RCT = randomized controlled trial; SR = systematic review.

Open in a new tab

Funding support

The percentage of PT research publications declaring funding grew significantly and relatively linearly between 1995 and 2015 (from 29.7% in 1995 to 57% in 2015; r² = 0.83; p < 0.01). The growth did not significantly differ, though, from that of comparator publications – physical rehabilitation, excluding PT, and human-based health research in PubMed; the regression lines are similar among the three fields with 95% CIs for the t-tests of the slope values partly overlapping (Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Yearly percentages of publications declaring funding support for PT, physical rehabilitation without PT, and all human-based health research in PubMed, 1995–2015.

Figure 4

Note: The dotted lines represent the linear regression models.

PT = physiotherapy.

Open in a new tab

Age groups and health conditions

The percentage of studies with individuals aged 0–18 years decreased significantly between 1995 and 2015 (from 22% in 1995 to 17.4% in 2015; r² = 0.22; p = 0.03). There were no significant changes in the percentage of PT research publications involving adults and older people during that time (for adults, from 49.8% in 1995 to 48.6% in 2015; r² = 0.12; p = 0.13; for older people, from 34.4% in 1995 to 38.6% in 2015; r² = 0.13; p = 0.11, respectively; Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Yearly percentages of physiotherapy research publications across the age groups of treated populations, 1995–2015.

Figure 5

Note: The dotted lines represent the linear regression models.

Open in a new tab

Studies focused on the nervous system and musculoskeletal conditions were the most prevalent, with no significant changes in percentages over the period studied (p > 0.05). However, the percentage of PT research publications focused on neoplasms (cancer patients) significantly increased and more than doubled (from 1.8% in 1995 to 4.3% in 2015; r2 = 0.67; p < 0.01). The percentage of studies on cardiovascular and pulmonary health conditions showed significant decreases: from 9.5% in 1995 to 8% in 2015 (r2 = 0.53; p < 0.01) and from 5.9% in 1995 to 5% in 2015 (r2 = 0.46; p < 0.01), respectively (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Yearly percentages of physiotherapy research publications, 1995–2015, across the main groups of health conditions.

Figure 6

Note: The dotted lines represent the linear regression models.

MSK = musculoskeletal.

Open in a new tab

Discussion

PT-focused research publications have become more prevalent among human-based health and physical rehabilitation research publications, with exponential growth in the percentages of both observed between 1995 and 2015. In fact, in that time, they became the majority of physical rehabilitation publications. In research design, RCTs became the majority of these publications. Although the percentage of PT research publications remained stable for most population groups, it was significantly reduced for the pulmonary and cardiovascular populations and for individuals aged 0–18 years and significantly increased for neoplasms.

The increase in the percentage of research publications devoted to PT may be part of an increased awareness, around the world, of the need to advance the physiotherapy evidence base.27 It may also reflect the increase in the number of physiotherapists who have entered the field with graduate degrees and who are trained in research. In addition, research has been incorporated into the curriculum at many PT schools; as a result, the number of research projects and publications from students and faculty has increased.28–32 Nurturing the research requirements in the education of physiotherapists is likely key to increasing the PT evidence base, now and in the future.

It is also possible that physiotherapy researchers are more likely to publish their research work in journals indexed by PubMed and that rates of conversion of physiotherapy research into full-text publications have increased. Whereas an early study found under-publication of full texts for orthopedic and sports physical therapy abstracts presented at a relevant meeting,33 a follow-up study found an increase of more than 50% in full-text publication rates for abstracts presented at that meeting for a subsequent time period.34 In addition, PT research publications may increasingly be indexed as being physiotherapy focused in the PubMed database. For example, the MeSH term physical therapists has been available since only 2012, whereas nurses was available in 1967.

We noted an increase in the percentage of research publications declaring funding support overall – that is, this trend was not exclusive to or higher for PT. We found that the increase in funding support has not directly increased the number of PT research publications as a percentage of human-based health and physical rehabilitation research, even though it likely has contributed to increasing the number of PT research publications. However, research funding may be associated with the quality of PT research publications. A recent survey of 210 published trials in musculoskeletal PT found that funding support was positively associated with the quality of trial conduct and reporting.35 Moreover, the quality of PT research publications has increased over the years,6 although important quality gaps remain.36–42 Further investigation of the relationship between funding support and the quantity and quality of PT research is warranted.

We observed that RCTs were becoming the majority of the selected PT research publications: they exceeded 50% in 2007 and increased to about 60% in 2015. For the broader rehabilitation field, which also relied on PubMed-indexed data, the percentage of clinical trials (including research designs other than RCTs) exceeded 50% only in the last year under analysis – 2013.1 We also found that RCTs and SRs combined accounted for about 75% of PT research publications in 2015. When we considered broader rehabilitation trends, SRs and clinical trials accounted for only about 60% of research publications in 2013.1 Overall, the rates of RCTs, and of RCTs and SRs combined, seem higher in PT than in the broader rehabilitation research. Despite the strength of RCTs and SRs, observational studies have been important in advancing the rehabilitation knowledge base,43 as have studies on the psychometric properties of outcome measures.44,45 Nonetheless, designs with strong internal validity, such as RCTs, strengthen the evidence base for specific PT interventions.

Emerging fields of PT practice may have generated new opportunities for conducting research. For example, we observed a significant increase in the percentage of PT research publications focused on neoplasms. In contrast, we observed a significant decrease in the percentage of these publications that focused on pulmonary and cardiac health conditions over the time period we studied, despite the increase in their number. In PEDro, the subdiscipline of cardiothoracics was, of 10 PT subdisciplines, the second highest represented in the number of articles available and number of searches,5,46 whereas the oncology subfield had one of the lowest numbers of searches,46 and its trials were among those that had lower quality scores.36

We observed that physiotherapy research publications on neoplasms grew from a nearly residual value, less than 2% in 1995, to more than 4% in 2015. With increasing cancer survival rates and greater value attributed to physical exercise and rehabilitation among cancer survivors, more PT research publications have emerged in this area.47 In turn, the evidence for pulmonary and cardiovascular PT practice might have been established sooner; it is now a major target for knowledge translation and implementation endeavors.48–50

We found no significant change over time in the percentage of PT research publications focused on nervous system, musculoskeletal, or pain conditions. This contrasts with the broader rehabilitation field, for which publications of SRs and trials on nervous system conditions were more than double those for musculoskeletal conditions in 2013, whereas in 1997 they were relatively equal. Musculoskeletal conditions, including back and neck pain, are among the leading causes of disability and among the costliest to the health system.51–53 Therefore, the observed trend in PT research publications, compared with those in the broader rehabilitation field, appears more aligned with epidemiological data and health system needs.

The percentage of PT research publications aimed at the adult and older populations remained relatively stable, although there was a significant reduction for the youngest age group (aged 0–18 y). Across the globe, the rate of people aged 65 years and older is increasing and expected to double by 2050, whereas the overall population is expected to grow by less than 30%,54 although these demographic trends were not reflected in the PT research. Changing demographics do not, though, necessarily result in a growth in research questions, and perhaps a peak, or ceiling, in the percentage of PT research focused on older populations has been achieved. However, a higher percentage of the population will benefit from PT research focused on older populations. Matching research production with societal and research needs is a complex matter increasingly fostered and analyzed in the broader health field.55–59 Systematically collecting and synthesizing data on publication trends, funding, methodological quality, knowledge gaps, and epidemiological and demographic data could help stakeholders establish PT research priorities.

This study has several limitations. First, it only reports on PubMed data; hence PT research publications not indexed in this database (i.e., those indexed only in CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, etc.) were not counted. Second, we analyzed the volume of PT research publications, not the quality. Third, we did not manually screen PubMed entries for content or methodology but relied on the PubMed indexing system. Fourth, some search terms and filters may have been more reliable than others: for a long time, PubMed did not include a specific MeSH term for SRs, although that was recommended.2,60 Fortunately, since 2019, newly published SRs can be indexed as such: SR is now a publication type in the MeSH tree. In the future, this will help identify and locate SRs in PubMed.

Fifth, we searched for MeSH terms mostly as major topics. This means that PT-related research (research indexed for a PT-related MeSH term but not as a major topic) was not included. Thus, not all the research of potential relevance to PT was considered. Sixth, PT research that did not focus on a given health condition as a major topic was not included in the distribution of PT research publications by health condition. This explains why the sum of the percentages across the analyzed health conditions for a given year is less than 100%. The focus on health conditions treated allowed us to compare them with the rehabilitation research literature; however, it does not necessarily reflect the subdisciplines of PT practice. Seventh, we did not include case reports or epidemiological or qualitative studies in the set of research publications; as a result, not all research was included.

Eighth, we addressed SRs overall (within a range of systematic approaches to knowledge synthesis),25,26,38,61,62 without distinguishing between or making separate analyses for, for example, SRs overall and the sub-group of those with meta-analysis; a previous analysis took this approach for the rehabilitation field.1 Despite this limitation, we acknowledge that under the right circumstances (e.g., focused study questions on intervention effects; homogeneous interventions, study designs, and contexts), SRs with meta-analysis are the methodological gold standard within the SR approach. Ninth, although working definitions were created to inform the selection of search terms, there were still grey areas – for example, in the inclusion or exclusion of what pertained to physical rehabilitation. Finally, although we analyzed the rates of declared funding support, we did not analyze the amount of that support, its relative growth, or the underlying financing mechanisms.63

Conclusion

Between 1995 and 2015, the percentage of PT research publications in the human-based health and physical rehabilitation fields has grown significantly – that is, we observed a significant relative growth in the volume of PT research publications. These publications declared funding support at increasing rates over these 20 years, but this growth rate was similar to that for comparator fields.

The distribution of PT research publications was relatively stable across most age groups and health conditions; adult populations and nervous system, musculoskeletal, and pain conditions were consistently the most frequently addressed. Significant changes occurred only for other populations: there was a significant decrease in focus on the younger population (aged 0–18 years) and on cardiac and pulmonary conditions, whereas there was a significant increase in publications addressing neoplasms. This seems to be an emerging area for these publications.

Finally, RCTs alone accounted for more than half of all PT research publications and, along with SRs, accounted for nearly three-quarters of them: these research designs are increasingly being used to provide higher levels of scientific evidence.

Key Messages

What is already known on this topic

Although the volume of health and rehabilitation research has been increasing exponentially over time, how the number of research publications in the physiotherapy (PT) field compared with that trend was unknown. Also unknown was whether any significant changes had occurred in research design, funding support, age groups, or health conditions.

What this study adds

Between 1995 and 2015, the percentage of PT research publications grew exponentially among both human health and physical rehabilitation research publications, revealing a significant gain in the relative volume of research. Randomized controlled trials became the majority of PT research publications, revealing greater rigour in study design choices. These publications declared increasing rates of funding support, but the trend was similar to that of comparator fields. The percentage of these publications focused on most health conditions and age groups remained stable, but it decreased for those focused on individuals aged 0–18 years and on cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions. However, the percentage significantly increased for publications focused on neoplasms.

Supplementary Material

Appendix 1
Click here for additional data file. (44.4KB, pdf)

References

  • 1. Jesus TS. Systematic reviews and clinical trials in rehabilitation: comprehensive analyses of publication trends. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(11):1853–62.e2. 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.06.017. Medline:27424809 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. Medline:27218655 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mimouni M, Cismariu-Potash K, Ratmansky M, et al. Trends in physical medicine and rehabilitation publications over the past 16 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(6):1030–3. 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.10.102. Medline:26589679 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Castellini G, Gianola S, Banfi G, et al. Mechanical low back pain: secular trend and intervention topics of randomized controlled trials. Physiother Can. 2016;68(1):61–3. 10.3138/ptc.2014-58. Medline:27504049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Kamper SJ, Moseley AM, Herbert RD, et al. 15 years of tracking physiotherapy evidence on PEDro, where are we now? Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(14):907–9. 10.1136/bjsports-2014-094468. Medline:25833902 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Snell K, Hassan A, Sutherland L, et al. Types and quality of physical therapy research publications: has there been a change in the past decade? Physiother Can. 2014;66(4):382–91. 10.3138/ptc.2013-67. Medline:25922560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Coronado RA, Riddle DL, Wurtzel WA, et al. Bibliometric analysis of articles published from 1980 to 2009 in Physical Therapy, Journal of the American Physical Therapy Association. Phys Ther. 2011;91(5):642–55. 10.2522/ptj.20100267. Medline:21372202 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Wiles L, Matricciani L, Williams M, et al. Sixty-five years of Physical Therapy: bibliometric analysis of research publications from 1945 through 2010. Phys Ther. 2012;92(4):493–506. 10.2522/ptj.20110013. Medline:22194279 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Simon CB, Coronado RA, Wurtzel WA, et al. Content and bibliometric analyses of the Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy. J Man Manip Ther. 2014;22(4):181–90. 10.1179/2042618614y.0000000075. Medline:25395826 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Saragiotto BT, Costa LC, Oliveira RF, et al. Description of research design of articles published in four Brazilian physical therapy journals. Braz J Phys Ther. 2014;18(1):56–62. 10.1590/s1413-35552012005000136. Medline:24675913 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, et al. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076–84. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.017. Medline:26279401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Michaleff ZA, Costa LO, Moseley AM, et al. CENTRAL, PEDro, PubMed, and EMBASE are the most comprehensive databases indexing randomized controlled trials of physical therapy interventions. Phys Ther. 2011;91(2):190–7. 10.2522/ptj.20100116. Medline:21148259 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Fell DW, Burnham JF, Dockery JM. Determining where physical therapists get information to support clinical practice decisions. Health Info Libr J. 2013;30(1):35–48. 10.1111/hir.12010. Medline:23413792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326. Medline:20877712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Ma Y, Dong M, Zhou K, et al. Publication trends in acupuncture research: a 20-year bibliometric analysis based on PubMed. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168123 10.1371/journal.pone.0168123. Medline:27973611 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Hung BT, Long NP, Hung le P, et al. Research trends in evidence-based medicine: a joinpoint regression analysis of more than 50 years of publication data. PLoS One. 2015; 10(4):e0121054 10.1371/journal.pone.0121054. Medline:25849641 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Negrini S. Steady growth seen for research in physical and rehabilitation medicine: where our specialty is now and where we are going. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;48(4):543–8. Medline:23183449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Ugolini D, Neri M, Cesario A, et al. Bibliometric analysis of literature in cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases rehabilitation: growing numbers, reducing impact factor. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013;94(2):324–31. 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.205. Medline:22922328 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Richter RR, Austin TM. Using MeSH (medical subject headings) to enhance PubMed search strategies for evidence-based practice in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 2012;92(1):124–32. 10.2522/ptj.20100178. Medline:21979271 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Meyer T, Gutenbrunner C, Bickenbach J, et al. Towards a conceptual description of rehabilitation as a health strategy. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43(9):765–9. 10.2340/16501977-0865. Medline:21826389 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Krug E, Cieza A. Strengthening health systems to provide rehabilitation services. Bull World Health Organ. 2017;95(3):167 10.2471/blt.17.191809. Medline:28250526 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Jesus TS, Bright F, Kayes N, et al. Person-centred rehabilitation: what exactly does it mean? Protocol for a scoping review with thematic analysis towards framing the concept and practice of person-centred rehabilitation. BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e011959 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011959. Medline:27436670 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Jesus TS, Landry MD, Dussault G, et al. Human resources for health (and rehabilitation): six rehab-workforce challenges for the century. Hum Resour Health. 2017:15(1):8 10.1186/s12960-017-0182-7. Medline:28114960 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. NIH Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee National Institutes of Health research plan on rehabilitation: NIH Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee. Phys Ther. 2017;97(4):104–407. 10.1097/phm.0000000000000709. Medline:28301427 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Colquhoun HL, Jesus TS, O’Brien KK, et al. Study protocol for a scoping review on rehabilitation scoping reviews. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(9):1249–56. 10.1177/0269215516688514. Medline:28118743 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Jesus TS, Colquhoun H. Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018;54(5):785–91. 10.23736/s1973-9087.17.04858-4. Medline:28870059 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Jette AM, Latham N. Improving the evidence base for physical therapy disability interventions. Phys Ther. 2010;90(3):324–5. 10.2522/ptj.2010.90.3.324. Medline:20190233 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Vercelli S, Ravizzotti E, Paci M. Are they publishing? A descriptive cross-sectional profile and bibliometric analysis of the journal publication productivity of Italian physical therapists. Arch Physiother. 2018;8(1):1 10.1186/s40945-017-0042-8. Medline:29340208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. MacDermid JC, Fung EH, Law M. Bibliometric analyses of physical and occupational therapy faculty across Canada indicate productivity and impact of rehabilitation research. Physiother Can. 2015;67(1):76–84. 10.3138/ptc.2013-71bc. Medline:25931657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Richter RR, Schlomer SL, Krieger MM, et al. Journal publication productivity in academic physical therapy programs in the United States and Puerto Rico from 1998 to 2002. Phys Ther. 2008;88(3):376–86. 10.2522/ptj.20060266. Medline:18096652 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Salbach NM, O’Brien K, Evans C, et al. Dissemination of student research in a Canadian master of science in physical therapy programme. Physiother Can. 2013;65(2):154–7. 10.3138/ptc.2012-18. Medline:24403678 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Cook CE, Landry MD, Covington JK, et al. Scholarly research productivity is not related to higher three-year licensure pass rates for physical therapy academic programs. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15(1):148 10.1186/s12909-015-0431-1. Medline:26362434 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Smith HD, Bogenschutz ED, Bayliss AJ, et al. Full-text publication of abstract-presented work in physical therapy: do therapists publish what they preach? Phys Ther. 2011;91(2):234–45. 10.2522/ptj.20100243. Medline:21169423 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Warden SJ, Fletcher JM, Barker RG, et al. Progress in the full-text publication rate of Orthopaedic and Sport Physical Therapy abstracts presented at the American Physical Therapy Association’s combined sections meeting. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2017;48(1):44–9. 10.2519/jospt.2018.7581. Medline:28990444 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Maas E, Maher C, Moseley A, et al. Funding is related to the quality, conduct, and reporting of trial reports in musculoskeletal physical therapy: a survey of 210 published trials. Physiother Theory Pract. 2016;32(8):628–35. 10.1080/09593985.2016.1222472. Medline:27617707 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Janer-Duncan L, et al. The quality of reports of randomized controlled trials varies between subdisciplines of physiotherapy. Physiother Can. 2014;66(1):36–43. 10.3138/ptc.2012-68. Medline:24719507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Zoldan Gonzalez G, Moseley AM, Maher CG, et al. Methodologic quality and statistical reporting of physical therapy randomized controlled trials relevant to musculoskeletal conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(1):129–36. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.485. Medline:28962828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Gianola S, Gasparini M, Agostini M, et al. Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2013;93(11):1456–66. 10.2522/ptj.20120382. Medline:23744458 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Gianola S, Frigerio P, Agostini M, et al. Completeness of outcomes description reported in low back pain rehabilitation interventions: a survey of 185 randomized trials. Physiother Can. 2016;68(3):267–74. 10.3138/ptc.2015-30. Medline:27909376 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Castellini G, Gianola S, Bonovas S, et al. Improving power and sample size calculation in rehabilitation trial reports: a methodological assessment. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;97(7):1195–201. 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.02.013. Medline:26971671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Gianola S, Castellini G, Agostini M, et al. Reporting of rehabilitation intervention for low back pain in randomized controlled trials: is the treatment fully replicable? Spine. 2016;41(5):412–8. 10.1097/brs.0000000000001290. Medline:26926164 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Gonzalez GZ, Moseley AM, Maher CG, et al. Methodologic quality and statistical reporting of physical therapy randomized controlled trials relevant to musculoskeletal conditions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018;99(1):129–36. 10.1016/j.apmr.2017.08.485. Medline:28962828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Horn SD, DeJong G, Deutscher D. Practice-based evidence research in rehabilitation: an alternative to randomized controlled trials and traditional observational studies. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:(8 Suppl):S127–37. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.10.031. Medline:22840879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Velozo CA, Seel RT, Magasi S, et al. Improving measurement methods in rehabilitation: core concepts and recommendations for scale development. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:(8 Suppl):S154–63. 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.06.001. Medline:22840881 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Dijkers MP. Issues in the conceptualization and measurement of participation: an overview. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010;91:(9 Suppl):S5–16. 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.10.036. Medline:20801280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Yamato TP, Arora M, Stevens ML, et al. Quality, language, subdiscipline and promotion were associated with article accesses on Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Physiotherapy. 2018;104(1):122–8. 10.1016/j.physio.2017.08.003. Medline:28927671 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Yang DD, Hausien O, Aqeel M, et al. Physical activity levels and barriers to exercise referral among patients with cancer. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(7):1402–7. 10.1016/j.pec.2017.01.019. Medline:28189469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Rochester CL, Vogiatzis I, Holland AE, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society policy statement: enhancing implementation, use, and delivery of pulmonary rehabilitation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2015;192(11):1373–86. 10.1164/rccm.201510-1966st. Medline:26623686 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Piepoli MF, Corrà U, Benzer W, et al. Secondary prevention through cardiac rehabilitation: from knowledge to implementation. A position paper from the Cardiac Rehabilitation Section of the European Association of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2010;17(1):1–17. 10.1097/hjr.0b013e3283313592. Medline:19952757 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Grace SL, Turk-Adawi KI, Contractor A, et al. Cardiac rehabilitation delivery model for low-resource settings. Heart. 2016;102(18):1449–55. 10.1136/heartjnl-2015-309209. Medline:27181874 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. GBD 2016 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 328 diseases and injuries for 195 countries, 1990–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. Lancet. 2017;390(10100):1211–59. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32154-2. Medline:28919117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. March L, Smith EU, Hoy DG, et al. Burden of disability due to musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2014;28(3):353–66. 10.1016/j.berh.2014.08.002. Medline:25481420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(5):986–95. 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.10.032. Medline:24462839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. United Nations World population prospects: key findings & advance tables [Internet]. New York: United Nations; 2017. [cited 2017 Dec 20]. Available from: https://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2017_KeyFindings.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Lauer MS, Gordon D, Olive M. Matching taxpayer funding to population health needs: not so simple. Circ Res. 2015;116(8):1301–3. 10.1161/circresaha.114.305893. Medline:25858063 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Viergever RF, Hendriks TC. The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016:14(1):12 10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z. Medline:26892771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Katz L, Fink RV, Bozeman SR, et al. Using health care utilization and publication patterns to characterize the research portfolio and to plan future research investments. PLoS One. 2014;9(12):e114873 10.1371/journal.pone.0114873. Medline:25493576 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Glover M, Montague E, Pollitt A, et al. Estimating the returns to United Kingdom publicly funded musculoskeletal disease research in terms of net value of improved health outcomes. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018:16(1):1 10.1186/s12961-017-0276-7. Medline:29316935 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Yoong SL, Hall A, Williams CM, et al. Alignment of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness with global burden-of-disease data: a bibliographic analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015:69(7):708–14. 10.1136/jech-2014-205389. Medline:25888595 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta-analyses in medline. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(3):203–10. 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2008.00823.x. Medline:19712212 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015; 4(1):183 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7. Medline:26693720 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Brown PA, Harniss MK, Schomer KG, et al. Conducting systematic evidence reviews: core concepts and lessons learned. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;93:(8 Suppl):S177–84. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.11.038. Medline:22840882 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Negrini S, Padua L, Kiekens C, et al. Current research funding methods dumb down health care and rehabilitation for disabled people and aging population: a call for a change. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2014;50(6):601–8. Medline:25521703 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix 1
Click here for additional data file. (44.4KB, pdf)

Articles from Physiotherapy Canada are provided here courtesy of University of Toronto Press and the Canadian Physiotherapy Association

RESOURCES