Análise da qualidade metodológica e descrição estatística de estudos controlados aleatorizados de intervenções fisioterapêuticas para condições cardiorrespiratórias

• Ano de defesa: 2012
• Autor(a) principal: Geha, Nádia Nayef
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Cidade de São Paulo; Brasil; Pós-Graduação; Programa de Pós-Graduação Mestrado em Fisioterapia; UNICID
• Palavras-chave em Português: CONSORT Statement; Qualidade metodológica; FISIOTERAPIA E TERAPIA OCUPACIONAL
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/1141

Background: Cardiothoracic physiotherapy is the second largest physiotherapy subdiscipline with regards to the number of studies related to the effect of interventions. Although there is a large number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) related to the efficacy of physiotherapy interventions for cardiothoracic conditions, there are no studies that aimed to summarize the methodological quality and statistical reporting of reports of these RCTs. Objectives: To describe the methodological quality and statistical reporting of reports of RCTs in cardiothoracic physiotherapy indexed on PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database) through the 11-item PEDro scale as well as by some items from the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Statement). A secondary aim was to determine possible trial characteristics that could be associated with better quality. Methods: All cardiothoracic physiotherapy trials with complete consensus ratings on PEDro were retrieved. Data regarding the methodological quality and statistical reporting were extracted. Data analysis was performed by using descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 2970 trials published in 598 journals were analysed. These studies have a mean PEDro score of 4.72 points (SD=1.41). The methodological quality and statistical reporting of these trials improved over time. However, important criteria such as concealed allocation, intention to treat analysis and blinding of participants, therapists and assessors were poorly attended by authors. We have also observed a low proportion of items suggested by the CONSORT statement satisfied such as trial registration (3.5%) and statistical adjustment for multiple primary outcomes (5.4%). Finally we observed that language of publication, endorsement of the CONSORT statement by the journals and time since publication influences the PEDro score. Conclusions: Methodological quality and statistical reporting of reports of cardiothoracic trials in physiotherapy have improved over time; however there is a large possibility for improvement. We strongly recommend the endorsement of the CONSORT Statement for physiotherapy journals that are relevant to cardiothoracic conditions.