Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2026
Motor Dual-Tasks for Gait Analysis and Evaluation in Post-Stroke Patients
Published on: March 11, 2021
"Go neurological physical therapy research, go"! Volume and methodological quality of neurological physical therapy:
Julia Mafra Vasconcelos1, Yasmine Guimarães Viana1, Marina de Barros Pinheiro2
1Physiotherapy Department, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Background:
Two decades ago, more than 200 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of neurological physical therapy interventions in adults and pediatric populations were identified from 1958 to 2000, with half rated moderate to high quality on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Does the current panorama remain the same?
Objective:
To investigate the changes in volume and quality of RCT of neurological physical therapy in adults and paediatrics indexed in the PEDro database between 1958 to 2021. In addition, to investigate if there is a relationship between journal impact factor and methodological quality.
Methods:
All RCTs of neurological physical therapy in adults and pediatrics indexed in PEDro between 1958-2021 were included. Descriptive statistics described trial volume, quality, and trends over the years. Spearman's rho correlation test assessed the association between methodological quality and journal ranking (Journal Impact Factor (JIF) and Journal Citation Indication (JCI)).
Results:
A total of 6291 RCTs of neurological physical therapy in adults and pediatrics were indexed in PEDro between 1958-2021, with a mean PEDro scale score of 5.3/10 (SD 1.6). The quality of RCTs improved over time, with a mean score of 5.7/10 (SD 1.4) for RCTs published between 2018-2021, compared to 1/10 between 1962-1965. A weak and significant relationship was found between methodological quality and JIF (r=0.153; p<0.001) and JCI (r=0.146; p<0.001).
Conclusion:
There is a large and growing volume of RCTs on neurological physical therapy in adults and pediatrics indexed in PEDro, with increasing quality over time, though still moderate. Journal ranking should not be used for selecting high quality RCTs.
