Special communication| Volume 93, ISSUE 5, P912-918, May 2012

Download started.


Systematic Reviews for Informing Rehabilitation Practice: An Introduction


      Dijkers MP, Bushnik T, Heinemann AW, Heller T, Libin AV, Starks J, Sherer M, Vandergoot D. Systematic reviews for informing rehabilitation practice: an introduction.
      The research literature that rehabilitation clinicians need to be familiar with has become too large for anyone to read, and numerous published studies are too complex for many practitioners to understand and fruitfully use. One method to keep up with new findings is through systematic reviews. Systematic reviews can be effective tools that help guide rehabilitation practice by identifying the best research that provides the evidence for enhanced clinical decision-making. This article describes how systematic reviews are created, indicates where rehabilitation clinicians may find them, and refers to a resource that may be of use in evaluating their quality and applicability.

      Key Words

      List of Abbreviations:

      EBP (evidence-based practice), NCDDR (National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research), SR (systematic review)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Iwasaki W.
        • Yamamoto Y.
        • Takagi T.
        TogoDoc server/client system: smart recommendation and efficient management of life science literature.
        PLoS One. 2010; 5: e15305
        • 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: e1000326
        • Rzhetsky A.
        • Seringhaus M.
        • Gerstein M.
        Seeking a new biology through text mining.
        Cell. 2008; 134: 9-13
        • Avenell A.
        • Handoll H.H.
        • Grant A.M.
        Lessons for search strategies from a systematic review, in the Cochrane library, of nutritional supplementation trials in patients after hip fracture.
        Am J Clin Nutr. 2001; 73: 505-510
        • Royle P.
        • Milne R.
        Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003; 19: 591-603
        • Minozzi S.
        • Pistotti V.
        • Forni M.
        Searching for rehabilitation articles on MEDLINE and EMBASE.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81: 720-722
        • Lawrence D.W.
        What is lost when searching only one literature database for articles relevant to injury prevention and safety promotion?.
        Inj Prev. 2008; 14: 401-404
        • Fangerau H.
        Finding European bioethical literature: an evaluation of the leading abstracting and indexing services.
        J Med Ethics. 2004; 30: 299-303
        • Carter R.E.
        • Stoecker J.
        Descriptors of American Physical Therapy Association physical therapist members' reading of professional publications.
        Physiother Theory Pract. 2006; 22: 263-278
        • Jette D.U.
        • Bacon K.
        • Batty C.
        • et al.
        Evidence-based practice: beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors of physical therapists.
        Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 786-805
        • Burke D.T.
        • DeVito M.C.
        • Schneider J.C.
        • Julien S.
        • Judelson A.L.
        Reading habits of physical medicine and rehabilitation resident physicians.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 83: 551-559
        • Burke D.T.
        • Judelson A.L.
        • Schneider J.C.
        • DeVito M.C.
        • Latta D.
        Reading habits of practicing physiatrists.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 81: 779-787
        • Humphris D.
        • Littlejohns P.
        • Victor C.
        • O'Halloran P.
        • Peacock J.
        Implementing evidence-based practice: factors that influence the use of research evidence by occupational therapists.
        Br J Occup Ther. 2000; 63: 516-522
        • Metcalfe C.J.
        • Lewin R.
        • Closs J.
        • Hughes C.
        • Perry S.
        • Wright J.
        Research in the NHS: a survey of four therapies.
        Br J Ther Rehabil. 2000; 7: 168-175
        • Moher D.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Sampson M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
        PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e78
        • Schmidt L.M.
        • Gotzsche P.C.
        Of mites and men: reference bias in narrative review articles: a systematic review.
        J Fam Pract. 2005; 54: 334-338
        • Mulrow C.D.
        The medical review article: state of the science.
        Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485-488
        • McAlister F.A.
        • Clark H.D.
        • van Walraven C.
        • et al.
        The medical review article revisited: has the science improved?.
        Ann Intern Med. 1999; 131: 947-951
        • PLoS Medicine editors
        Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others.
        PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e147
        • Ezzo J.
        • Bausell B.
        • Moerman D.E.
        • Berman B.
        • Hadhazy V.
        Reviewing the reviews.
        Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001; 17: 457-466
        • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) effective health care program
        Glossary of terms.
        (Accessed September 21, 2011)
      1. Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 (Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]) (Available at:)
      2. The Campbell Collaboration.
        (Accessed April 1, 2011 Available at)
      3. GRADE Working Group.
        (Accessed April 1, 2011 Available at)
        • Edlund W.
        • Gronseth G.
        • So Y.
        • Franklin G.
        Clinical practice guidelines process manual—2004 edition.
        American Academy of Neurology, St. Paul2004
        • Sampson M.
        • McGowan J.
        • Cogo E.
        • Grimshaw J.
        • Moher D.
        • Lefebvre C.
        An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 944-952
        • Institute of Medicine
        Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews.
        The National Academies Press, Washington (DC)2011
        • Dijkers M.
        Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 88: 423-430
        • Jadad A.R.
        • Cook D.J.
        • Browman G.P.
        A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
        CMAJ. 1997; 156: 1411-1416
        • Vavken P.
        • Dorotka R.
        A systematic review of conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467: 2723-2735
        • Hayden J.A.
        • Chou R.
        • Hogg-Johnson S.
        • Bombardier C.
        Systematic reviews of low back pain prognosis had variable methods and results: guidance for future prognosis reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 781-796
        • Mrkobrada M.
        • Thiessen-Philbrook H.
        • Haynes R.B.
        • Iansavichus A.V.
        • Rehman F.
        • Garg A.X.
        Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews.
        Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008; 3: 1102-1114
        • Parekh-Bhurke S.
        • Kwok C.S.
        • Pang C.
        • et al.
        Uptake of methods to deal with publication bias in systematic reviews has increased over time, but there is still much scope for improvement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64: 349-357
        • Strech D.
        • Tilburt J.
        Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 521-524
        • Shojania K.G.
        • Sampson M.
        • Ansari M.T.
        • Ji J.
        • Doucette S.
        • Moher D.
        How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date?.
        Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: 224-233
        • Dijkers M.P.
        Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines.
        SEDL, Austin2009
        • Marret E.
        • Elia N.
        • Dahl J.B.
        • et al.
        Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case.
        Anesthesiology. 2009; 111: 1279-1289
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • PRISMA Group
        Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1006-1012
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: e1-e34
        • Lai N.M.
        • Teng C.L.
        • Lee M.L.
        Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions?.
        BMC Med. 2011; 9: 30
        • Institute of Medicine
        Clinical practice guidelines we can trust.
        National Academies Press, Washington (DC)2011
        • Shea B.J.
        • Grimshaw J.M.
        • Wells G.A.
        • et al.
        Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 10
        • Shea B.J.
        • Hamel C.
        • Wells G.A.
        • et al.
        AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1013-1020
        • Task Force on Systematic Reviews and Guidelines
        Guidelines for assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews.
        SEDL, National Center for the Dissemination of Rehabilitation Research, Austin2011 (Available at)
        • Patsopoulos N.A.
        • Analatos A.A.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Relative citation impact of various study designs in the health sciences.
        JAMA. 2005; 293: 2362-2366
        • Ketcham C.M.
        • Crawford J.M.
        The impact of review articles.
        Lab Invest. 2007; 87: 1174-1185
        • Coats A.J.
        Top of the charts: download versus citations in the International Journal of Cardiology.
        Int J Cardiol. 2005; 105: 123-125