Refine
Document Type
- Article (6)
Language
- English (6)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (6)
Keywords
- Rehabilitation (2)
- Bias (1)
- Evidence-based practice (1)
- Methodological (1)
- Randomized controlled trials as topic (1)
Institute
- Fakultät WiSo (6)
Objective
Some recent studies suggest that double blinding should not be considered a validity criterion in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on real-life circumstances. This study aims to assess whether blinding vs. nonblinding have been analyzed conceptually in the rehabilitation literature. Propositions on the role of blinding in RCTs on rehabilitation are presented based on the conceptual analysis.
One of the goals of Cochrane Rehabilitation is to strengthen methodology relevant to evidence-based clinical practice. Toward this goal, several research activities have been performed in rehabilitation literature: a scoping review listed the methodological issues in research, a study showed the low clinical replicability of randomized controlled trials, two systematic reviews showed the relevant items in reporting guidelines, and a series of articles discussed main methodological issues as a result of the first Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting (Paris 2018). The need to improve the quality of conduct and reporting of research studies in rehabilitation emerged as a relevant task. The aim of this article is to present the Randomized Controlled Trial Rehabilitation Checklists (RCTRACK) project to produce a specific reporting guideline in rehabilitation.
Sponsorship bias could affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. The extent to which sponsorship bias affect results in the field of physical therapy has been unexplored in the literature. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy area.