PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for trial participants and the waste of research funds. Scientific medical journals could require this in their author guidelines. While this applies to all areas of research, it is also relevant to physiotherapy and rehabilitation research, which predominantly involve interventional trials in patients.
The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE).
This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs).
In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature.
Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.
The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which the use of systematic reviews to justify a new trial is already being requested by physiotherapy-related scientific medical journals (PTJs). In addition, a comparison was made between PTJs and scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the Science Citation Index Extended (SCIE).
This meta-research study is based on a systematic examination of the author guidelines of 149 PTJs. The journals were identified and included based on the number of publications with physiotherapy as a keyword in the databases PEDro, and Medline (Pubmed). The included author guidelines were analysed for the extent to which they specified that a new trial should be justified by a systematic review of the literature. Additionally, they were compared with 14 scientific medical journals with the highest impact factor in the SCIE (LJs).
In their author guidelines, none of the included PTJs required or recommended the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial. Among LJs, four journals (28.57%), all associated with the Lancet group, required the study justification through a systematic review of the literature.
Neither PTJs nor LJs require or recommend the use of a systematic review to justify a new trial in their author guidelines. This potentially leaves room for unethical scientific practices and should be critically considered in future research.
摘要：
背景：要求作者将其研究建立在对现有文献进行系统回顾的基础上，以防止冗余科学研究的产生，从而避免剥夺试验参与者的有效疗法和浪费研究经费。科学医学期刊可能在其作者指南中要求这一点。虽然这适用于所有研究领域，它也与物理治疗和康复研究有关，主要涉及患者的介入试验。
目的：本研究的目的是确定物理治疗相关科学医学期刊（PTJ）已经要求使用系统评价来证明一项新试验的合理性的程度。此外,在PTJ和科学引文索引扩展(SCIE)中影响因子最高的科学医学期刊之间进行了比较.
方法：这项荟萃研究基于对149名PTJ的作者指南的系统检查。根据以物理治疗为关键字的出版物数量，在PEDro数据库中确定并包括期刊，和Medline（Pubmed）。对纳入的作者指南进行了分析，以了解他们在多大程度上指定新试验应通过对文献的系统回顾来证明其合理性。此外,他们与SCIE（LJs）中影响因子最高的14种科学医学期刊进行了比较。
结果：在他们的作者指南中，纳入的PTJ均未要求或推荐使用系统评价来证明新试验的合理性.在LJ中，四本期刊(28.57%)，都和《柳叶刀》组有关,要求通过对文献的系统回顾来证明研究的合理性。
结论：PTJ和LJ均不要求或推荐使用系统评价来证明其作者指南中的一项新试验的合理性。这可能为不道德的科学实践留下了空间，应该在未来的研究中加以认真考虑。
目的：本研究的目的是确定物理治疗相关科学医学期刊（PTJ）已经要求使用系统评价来证明一项新试验的合理性的程度。此外,在PTJ和科学引文索引扩展(SCIE)中影响因子最高的科学医学期刊之间进行了比较.
方法：这项荟萃研究基于对149名PTJ的作者指南的系统检查。根据以物理治疗为关键字的出版物数量，在PEDro数据库中确定并包括期刊，和Medline（Pubmed）。对纳入的作者指南进行了分析，以了解他们在多大程度上指定新试验应通过对文献的系统回顾来证明其合理性。此外,他们与SCIE（LJs）中影响因子最高的14种科学医学期刊进行了比较。
结果：在他们的作者指南中，纳入的PTJ均未要求或推荐使用系统评价来证明新试验的合理性.在LJ中，四本期刊(28.57%)，都和《柳叶刀》组有关,要求通过对文献的系统回顾来证明研究的合理性。
结论：PTJ和LJ均不要求或推荐使用系统评价来证明其作者指南中的一项新试验的合理性。这可能为不道德的科学实践留下了空间，应该在未来的研究中加以认真考虑。
