One in 11 Cochrane Reviews Are on Rehabilitation Interventions, According to Pragmatic Inclusion Criteria Developed by Cochrane Rehabilitation

Published:March 02, 2019DOI:



      To identify all published protocols and reviews in the Cochrane Library relevant to the scope of practice of rehabilitation; to test pragmatic criteria to identify rehabilitation interventions; to begin categorizing reviews according to the professionals involved in delivering the intervention and broad areas of clinical practice.

      Data Sources

      Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

      Study Selection

      We screened all published reviews and protocols in the Cochrane library.

      Data Extraction

      We built an online relational database into which we imported titles and abstracts of all reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library from 1996 to August 2018. We recruited rehabilitation professionals worldwide through Cochrane Rehabilitation’s social media to find and tag rehabilitation reviews in this database. One rehabilitation physician and 1 allied health professional independently tagged each title against prespecified criteria. The Cochrane Rehabilitation Review Committee examined disagreements between contributors for any uncertainties about how to categorize a review. We revised and improved our preliminary criteria for identifying rehabilitation interventions as the work progressed.

      Data Synthesis

      We identified that 9.4% of all Cochrane publications (894/9471 reviews and protocols) are directly relevant to the practice of rehabilitation. The professional groups whose interventions were most frequently the subject of rehabilitation reviews and protocols were rehabilitation physicians and physical therapists. We also identified a final list of inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviews on rehabilitation interventions.


      Many Cochrane Reviews are directly relevant to rehabilitation. Cochrane needs to consider the rehabilitation community a major stakeholder in all its work. The pragmatic criteria we tested are offered for future discussions on the identification and categorization of rehabilitation interventions by stakeholders worldwide. This work will support the spread of content from the Cochrane Library to rehabilitation professionals and guide future research.


      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


        • Negrini S.
        • Kiekens C.
        • Levack W.
        • et al.
        Cochrane physical and rehabilitation medicine: a new field to bridge between best evidence and the specific needs of our field of competence.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2016; 15 ([letter]): 417-418
        • Negrini S.
        • Gimigliano F.
        • Arienti C.
        • et al.
        Knowledge translation: the bridging function of Cochrane Rehabilitation.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2018; 99: 1242-1245
        • The Cochrane Collaboration
        Cochrane Fields.
        (Available at:) (Accessed June 29, 2018)
        • World Health Organization
        Rehabilitation: key for health in the 21st century.
        World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2017
        • Levack W.M.
        Cochrane Rehabilitation - Tagging Database [Video file].
        (Available at:) (Accessed January 17, 2019)
        • Landis J.R.
        • Koch G.G.
        The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
        Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
        • World Health Organization
        International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health.
        World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland2001
        • Cochrane Rehabilitation
        (Available at:) (Accessed January 19, 2019)
        • Levack W.
        • Rathore F.
        • Pollet J.
        • et al.
        Cochrane Rehabilitation “tagging” of Cochrane Reviews 1996 - August 2018.
        (Available at:) (Accessed November 18, 2018)
        • Dijkers M.P.
        • Murphy S.L.
        • Krellman J.
        Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S164-S176
        • Cochrane
        Strategy to 2020.
        (Available at:) (Accessed August 9, 2018)
        • Moretti A.
        • Gimigliano F.
        • Arienti C.
        • et al.
        The Cochrane Rehabilitation eBook: a knowledge translation tool to transfer evidence to different rehabilitation audiences.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018; 54: 622-623
        • Cochrane Community
        PICO annotation.
        (Available at:)
        • Moher D.
        • Liberati A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Altman D.G.
        • The PRISMA Group
        Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement.
        PLoS Med. 2009; 6e1000097