Advertisement

Methodological Issues in Rehabilitation Research: A Scoping Review

      Abstract

      Objective

      To identify, synthesize, and categorize the methodological issues faced by the rehabilitation field.

      Data Sources

      A scoping review was conducted using studies identified in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and Google Scholar up to August 2018.

      Study Selection

      We included all type of publications describing methodological issues in rehabilitation research where rehabilitation is described as a multimodal process. The methodological issues have been categorized and classified.

      Data Extraction

      The synthesis included qualitative and quantitative analysis. To focus the attention on rehabilitation, we post hoc divided in “specific issues” (highly related to, even if not exclusive of, rehabilitation research) and “generic issues” (common in biomedical research).

      Data Synthesis

      Seventy-one publications were included: 68% were narrative reviews, 15% systematic reviews, 7% editorials, 4% meta-epidemiologic studies, and 5% others. Specific methodological issues include the following: problematic application of randomized controlled trials (32%), absent definition of core outcome sets (28%), poor interventions description (22%), weak methodological (conducting) and reporting quality (21%), scarce clinical practice applicability (14%), lack of blinding assessor (10%), inadequate randomization methods or inadequate allocation concealment (8%), and inadequate participants description and recruitment (8%). “Generic” issues included the following: data and statistical description (31%), authors’ methodological training (7%), peer review process (6%, n=4), funding declaration (6%), ethical statement (3%), protocol registration (3%), and conflict of interest declaration (1%).

      Conclusions

      Methodological and reporting issues might influence the quality of the evidence produced in rehabilitation research. The next steps to move forward in the field of rehabilitation could be to evaluate the influence of all these issues on the validity of trial results through meta-epidemiologic studies and to develop specific checklists to provide guidance to authors to improve the reporting and conduct of trials in this field.

      Keywords

      List of abbreviations:

      PICO (population, intervention, control (comparison), and outcomes), RCT (randomized controlled trial)
      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:

      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

      References

        • GBD 2015 disease and injury incidence and prevalence collaborators
        Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015.
        Lancet. 2016; 388: 1545-1602
        • Chatterji S
        • Byles J
        • Cutler D
        • Seeman T
        • Verdes E.
        Health, functioning, and disability in older adults–present status and future implications.
        Lancet. 2015; 385: 563-575
        • Cieza A
        • Causey K
        • Kamenov K
        • Hanson SW
        • Chatterji S
        • Vos T.
        Global estimates of the need for rehabilitation based on the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.
        Lancet. 2021; 396: 2006-2017
        • Rauch A
        • Negrini S
        • Cieza A.
        Toward strengthening rehabilitation in health systems: methods used to develop a WHO package of rehabilitation interventions.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 100: 2205-2211
        • Gimigliano S
        • Negrini S.
        The World Health Organization “Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017; 53: 155-168
        • Negrini S
        • Kiekens C
        • Kiekens AW
        • Özçakar L
        • Frontera WR
        Prioritising people with disabilities implies furthering rehabilitation.
        Lancet. 2020; 395: 111
        • Stucki G
        • Bickenbach J
        • Gutenbrunner C
        • Melvin J.
        Rehabilitation: the health strategy of the 21st century.
        J Rehabil Med. 2018; 50: 309-316
        • Heinemann AW
        • Feuerstein M
        • Frontera WR
        • et al.
        Rehabilitation is a global health priority.
        BMC Health Serv Res. 2020; 20: 143
      1. World Health Organization. Rehabilitation 2030: a call for action. Available at:https://www.who.int/disabilities/care/KeyForHealth21stCentury.pdf. Accessed March 18, 2021.

        • Negrini S
        • Levack W
        • Gimigliano F
        • Arienti C
        • Villafañe JH
        • Kiekens C.
        The struggle for evidence in physical and rehabilitation medicine: publication rate of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews is growing more than in other therapeutic fields.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019; 98: 258-265
        • Levack WM
        • Meyer T
        • Negrini S
        • Malmivaara A.
        Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Committee: an international survey of priorities for future work.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2017; 53: 814-817
        • Negrini S
        • Arienti C
        • Kiekens C.
        Usual care: the big but unmanaged problem of rehabilitation evidence.
        Lancet. 2020; 395: 337
        • Sherman RE
        • Anderson SA
        • Dal Pan GJ
        • et al.
        Real-world evidence - what is it and what can it tell us?.
        N Engl J Med. 2016; 375: 2293-2297
        • Levack WM
        • Malmivaara A
        • Meyer T
        • Negrini S.
        Methodological problems in rehabilitation research. Report from a Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology meeting.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2019; 55: 319-321
        • Negrini S
        • Arienti C
        • Pollet J
        • et al.
        Clinical replicability of rehabilitation interventions in randomized controlled trials reported in main journals is inadequate.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 114: 108-117
        • Peters MDJ
        • Godfrey CM
        • Khalil H
        • McInerney P
        • Parker D
        • Soares CB.
        Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.
        Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015; 13: 141-146
        • Nyanchoka L
        • Tudur-Smith C
        • Thu VN
        • Iversen V
        • Tricco AC
        • Porcher R.
        A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 109: 99-110
        • Arksey H
        • O'Malley L
        Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework.
        Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005; 8: 19-32
        • Tricco AC
        • Lillie E
        • Zarin W
        • et al.
        PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation.
        Ann Intern Med. 2018; 169: 467-473
        • Negrini S
        • Meyer T
        • Arienti C
        • et al.
        The 3rd Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology meeting: “rehabilitation definition for scientific research purposes.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020; 56: 658-660
        • Arienti C
        • Patrini M
        • Pollock A
        • Lazzarini SG
        • Oral A
        • Negrini S.
        A comparison and synthesis of rehabilitation definitions used by consumers (Google), major stakeholders (survey) and researchers (Cochrane Systematic Reviews): a terminological analysis.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2020; 56: 682-689
        • Sterne JAC
        • Jüni P
        • Schulz KF
        • Altman DG
        • Bartlett C
        • Egger M.
        Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in “meta-epidemiological” research.
        Stat Med. 2002; 21: 1513-1524
        • Grant MJ
        • Booth A.
        A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
        Health Inf Libr J. 2009; 26: 91-108
        • Colquhoun HL
        • Levac D
        • O'Brien KK
        • et al.
        Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 1291-1294
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Macedo LG
        • Gadotti IC
        • Fuentes J
        • Stanton T
        • Magee DJ.
        Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review.
        Phys Ther. 2008; 88: 156-175
        • Moher D
        • Jadad AR
        • Nichol G
        • Penman M
        • Tugwell P
        • Walsh S.
        Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.
        Control Clin Trials. 1995; 16: 62-73
        • Arienti C
        • Lazzarini SG
        • Patrini M
        • Puljak L
        • Pollock A
        • Negrini S.
        The structure of research questions in randomized-controlled trials in rehabilitation field: a methodological study.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2021; 100: 29-33
        • Johnston MV
        • Sherer M
        • Whyte J.
        Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 85: 292-309
        • Kim J
        • Yoon S
        • Kang JJ
        • Han K
        • Kim JM
        • Kim SK.
        Research designs and statistical methods trends in the Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine.
        Ann Rehabil Med. 2017; 41: 475-482
        • Malmivaara A.
        Clinical impact research - how to choose experimental or observational intervention study?.
        Ann Med. 2016; 48: 492-495
        • Hart T
        • Bagiella E.
        Design and implementation of clinical trials in rehabilitation research.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S117-S126
        • Horn SD
        • DeJong G
        • Deutscher D.
        Practice-based evidence research in rehabilitation: an alternative to randomized controlled trials and traditional observational studies.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S127-S137
        • Katz RT
        • Campagnolo DI
        • Goldberg G
        • Parker JC
        • Pine ZM
        • Whyte J.
        Critical evaluation of clinical research.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 76: 82-93
        • Johnston MV
        • Dijkers MP.
        Toward improved evidence standards and methods for rehabilitation: recommendations and challenges.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S185-S199
        • Abdul Latif L
        • Daud Amadera JE
        • Pimentel D
        • Pimentel T
        • Fregni F
        Sample size calculation in physical medicine and rehabilitation: a systematic review of reporting, characteristics, and results in randomized controlled trials.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011; 92: 306-315
        • Gama ZAS
        • Gómez-Conesa A.
        Systematic reviews of epidemiological studies. A tool for the evidence in physiotherapy [Spanish].
        Fisioterapia. 2010; 32: 25-32
        • Kersten P
        • Ellis-Hill C
        • McPherson KM
        • Harrington R.
        Beyond the RCT - understanding the relationship between interventions, individuals and outcome - the example of neurological rehabilitation.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32: 1028-1034
        • Dijkers MP.
        Ensuring inclusion of research reports in systematic reviews.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009; 90: S60-S69
        • Fuhrer MJ.
        Conducting multiple-site clinical trials in medical rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84: 823-831
        • Horn SD
        • DeJong G
        • Ryser DK
        • Veazie PJ
        • Teraoka J.
        Another look at observational studies in rehabilitation research: going beyond the holy grail of the randomized controlled trial.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 86: S8-15
        • Fuhrer MJ.
        Overview of clinical trials in medical rehabilitation: impetuses, challenges, and needed future directions.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: S8-15
        • Johnston MV.
        Desiderata for clinical trials in medical rehabilitation.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: S3-S7
        • Millis SR.
        Emerging standards in statistical practice: implications for clinical trials in rehabilitation medicine.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: S32-S37
        • Terrin M.
        Fundamentals of clinical trials for medical rehabilitation.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: S22-S25
        • Clark DO.
        Issues of adherence, penetration, and measurement in physical activity effectiveness studies.
        Med Care. 2001; 39: 409-412
        • Fitzgerald GK
        • Delitto A.
        Considerations for planning and conducting clinic-based research in physical therapy.
        Phys Ther. 2001; 81: 1446-1454
        • Robertson VJ.
        A quantitative analysis of research in physical therapy.
        Phys Ther. 1995; 75 ([discussion: 322-7]): 313-322
        • Bouter LM.
        Prevalence of methodologic errors in rehabilitation research.
        J Rehabil Sci. 1994; 7: 60-62
        • Whyte J.
        Toward a methodology for rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1994; 73: 428-435
        • Andrews K.
        The limitations of randomized controlled trials in rehabilitation research.
        Clin Rehabil. 1991; 5: 5-8
        • Mayo NE
        • Kaur N
        • Barbic SP
        • et al.
        How have research questions and methods used in clinical trials published in clinical rehabilitation changed over the last 30 years?.
        Clin Rehabil. 2016; 30: 847-864
        • Mayo NE
        • Asano M
        • Barbic SP.
        When is a research question not a research question?.
        J Rehabil Med. 2013; 45: 513-518
        • Versiani AHV
        • Martimbianco AC
        • Peccin MS.
        Mapping of the evidence from systematic reviews of the Cochrane Collaboration for decision-making within physiotherapy.
        Sao Paulo Med J. 2013; 131: 39-45
        • Chevan J
        • Haskvitz EM.
        Reported characteristics of participants in physical therapy-related clinical trials.
        Phys Ther. 2015; 95: 884-890
        • Bell KR
        • Hammond F
        • Hart T
        • Bickett AK
        • Temkin NR
        • Dikmen S.
        Participant recruitment and retention in rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008; 87: 330-338
        • Wade DT
        • Smeets RJ
        • Verbunt JA.
        Research in rehabilitation medicine: methodological challenges.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63: 699-704
        • Whyte J.
        Clinical trials in rehabilitation: what are the obstacles?.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: S16-S21
        • Dijkers MP
        • Kropp GC
        • Esper RM
        • Yavuzer G
        • Cullen N
        • Bakdalieh Y.
        Reporting on reliability and validity of outcome measures in medical rehabilitation research.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2002; 24: 819-827
        • Dijkers MP.
        Reporting on interventions: issues and guidelines for rehabilitation researchers.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2015; 96: 1170-1180
        • Dijkers MP
        • Murphy SL
        • Krellman J.
        Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S164-S176
        • Gordon WA.
        Perspectives on rehabilitation research.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 169-172
        • Wade D.
        Control in rehabilitation research.
        Clin Rehabil. 2009; 23: 675-680
        • Colquhoun HL
        • Lamontagne ME
        • Duncan EA
        • Fiander M
        • Champagne C
        • Grimshaw JM.
        A systematic review of interventions to increase the use of standardized outcome measures by rehabilitation professionals.
        Clin Rehabil. 2017; 31: 299-309
        • Dijkers M
        • Kropp GC
        • Esper RM
        • Yavuzer G
        • Cullen N
        • Bakdalieh Y.
        Quality of intervention research reporting in medical rehabilitation journals.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2002; 81: 21-33
        • Iezzoni LI.
        Risk adjusting rehabilitation outcomes: an overview of methodologic issues.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 83: 316-326
        • McPherson KM
        • Taylor WJ
        • Leplege A.
        Rehabilitation outcomes: values, methodologies and applications.
        Disabil Rehabil. 2010; 32: 961-964
        • Rushton A
        • Calvert M
        • Wright C
        • Freemantle N.
        Physiotherapy trials for the 21st century: time to raise the bar?.
        J R Soc Med. 2011; 104: 437-441
        • Sim J
        • Arnell P.
        Measurement validity in physical therapy research.
        Phys Ther. 1993; 73 ([discussion: 110-5]): 102-110
        • Wade DT.
        Outcome measures for clinical rehabilitation trials: impairment, function, quality of life, or value?.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: S26-S31
        • Fritz JM
        • Cleland J
        Effectiveness versus efficacy: more than a debate over language.
        J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2003; 33: 163-165
        • Miller PA
        • McKibbon KA
        • Haynes RB.
        A quantitative analysis of research publications in physical therapy journals.
        Phys Ther. 2003; 83: 123-131
        • Ottenbacher KJ.
        Why rehabilitation research does not work (as well as we think it should).
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 76: 123-129
        • Schwartz SJ
        • Sturr M
        • Goldberg G.
        Statistical methods in rehabilitation literature: a survey of recent publications.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996; 77: 497-500
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Fuentes J
        • da Costa BR
        • Saltaji H
        • Ha C
        • Cummings GG.
        Blinding in physical therapy trials and its association with treatment effects: a meta-epidemiological study.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017; 96: 34-44
        • Larsson J.
        Mapping physical therapy research: the geographical affiliations and methodological quality of 2,959 randomized controlled trials.
        Physiother Theory Pract. 2018; 34: 723-729
        • Schneider JC.
        Rehabilitation research priorities: the next 10 years.
        J Burn Care Res. 2017; 38: e635-e637
        • Siemonsma PC
        • Walker MF.
        Practical guidelines for independent assessment in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rehabilitation.
        Clin Rehabil. 1997; 11: 273-279
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Saltaji H
        • da Costa BR
        • Fuentes J
        • Ha C
        • Cummings GG.
        What is the influence of randomisation sequence generation and allocation concealment on treatment effects of physical therapy trials? A meta-epidemiological study.
        BMJ Open. 2015; 5e008562
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Cummings GG
        • Fuentes J
        • et al.
        Identifying items to assess methodological quality in physical therapy trials: a factor analysis.
        Phys Ther. 2014; 94: 1272-1284
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • da Costa BR
        • Cummings GG
        • et al.
        PEDro or Cochrane to assess the quality of clinical trials? A meta-epidemiological study.
        PLoS One. 2015; 10e0132634
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Fuentes J
        • Ospina M
        • Saltaji H
        • Hartling L.
        Inconsistency in the items included in tools used in general health research and physical therapy to evaluate the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials: a descriptive analysis.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 116
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Ospina M
        • da Costa BR
        • et al.
        Poor reliability between Cochrane reviewers and blinded external reviewers when applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool in physical therapy trials.
        PLoS One. 2014; 9: e96920
        • da Costa BR
        • Hilfiker R
        • Egger M.
        PEDro's bias: summary quality scores should not be used in meta-analysis.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 75-77
        • Farmer SE
        • Wood D
        • Swain ID
        • Pandyan AD.
        Assessment of the risk of bias in rehabilitation reviews.
        Int J Rehabil Res. 2012; 35: 317-322
        • Foley NC
        • Bhogal SK
        • Teasell RW
        • Bureau Y
        • Speechley MR.
        Estimates of quality and reliability with the physiotherapy evidence-based database scale to assess the methodology of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions.
        Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 817-824
        • Chan L
        • Heinemann AW
        • Roberts J.
        Elevating the quality of disability and rehabilitation research: mandatory use of the reporting guidelines.
        Int J Rehabil Res. 2014; 37: 103-104
        • Barnett SD
        • Heinemann AW
        • Libin A
        • et al.
        Small N designs for rehabilitation research.
        J Rehabil Res Dev. 2012; 49: 175-186
        • Castellini G
        • Gianola S
        • Bonovas S
        • Moja L.
        Improving power and sample size calculation in rehabilitation trial reports: a methodological assessment.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2016; 97: 1195-1201
        • Graham JE
        • Karmarkar AM
        • Ottenbacher KJ.
        Small sample research designs for evidence-based rehabilitation: issues and methods.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S111-S116
        • Johnson EK
        • Dow C
        • Lynch RT
        • Hermann BP.
        Measuring clinical significance in rehabilitation research.
        Rehabil Couns Bull. 2006; 50: 35-45
        • McNeely ML
        • Warren S.
        Value of confidence intervals in determining clinical significance.
        Physiother Can. 2006; 58: 205-211
        • Ottenbacher KJ
        • Barrett KA.
        Measures of effect size in the reporting of rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1989; 68: 52-58
        • Stoové MA
        • Andersen MB.
        What are we looking at, and how big is it?.
        Phys Ther Sport. 2003; 4: 93-97
        • Henley LD
        • Frank DM.
        Reporting ethical protections in physical therapy research.
        Phys Ther. 2006; 86: 499-509
        • Wade D.
        Registration of all rehabilitation clinical trials: an ethical and editorial imperative.
        Clin Rehabil. 2016; 30: 211-212
        • Wagner AK
        • Boninger ML
        • Levy C
        • Chan L
        • Gater D
        • Kirby RL.
        Peer review: issues in physical medicine and rehabilitation.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2003; 82: 790-802
        • Wagner AK
        • McElligott J
        • Wagner EP
        • Gerber LH.
        Measuring rehabilitation research capacity: report from the AAPM&R Research Advisory Committee.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2005; 84: 955-968
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Dennett L
        • Arienti C
        • et al.
        Blinding in rehabilitation research: empirical evidence on the association between blinding and treatment effect estimates.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 99: 198-209
        • Negrini S
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Patrini M
        • et al.
        The Randomized Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist: methodology of development of a reporting guideline specific to rehabilitation.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 99: 210-215
        • Boutron I
        • Tubach F
        • Giraudeau B
        • Ravaud P.
        Methodological differences in clinical trials evaluating nonpharmacological and pharmacological treatments of hip and knee osteoarthritis.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 1062-1070
        • Paez A.
        The “architect analogy” of evidence-based practice: reconsidering the role of clinical expertise and clinician experience in evidence-based health care.
        J Evid Based Med. 2018; 11: 219-226
        • Knottnerus JA
        • Tugwell P.
        Research without good questions is a waste.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 108: vi-viii
        • Guyatt GH
        • Oxman AD
        • Kunz R
        • et al.
        What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?.
        BMJ. 2008; 336: 995-998
      2. European Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Bodies Alliance. White book on physical and rehabilitation medicine (PRM) in Europe. Chapter 1. Definitions and concepts of PRM.
        Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2018; 54: 156-165
        • Armijo-Olivo S
        • Stiles CR
        • Hagen NA
        • Biondo PD
        • Cummings GG.
        Assessment of study quality for systematic reviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool: methodological research.
        J Eval Clin Pract. 2012; 18: 12-18
        • Austin TM
        • Richter RR
        • Sebelski CA.
        Introduction to the GRADE approach for guideline development: considerations for physical therapist practice.
        Phys Ther. 2014; 94: 1652-1659
        • Kinney AR
        • Eakman AM
        • Graham JE.
        Novel effect size interpretation guidelines and an evaluation of statistical power in rehabilitation research.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 101: 2219-2226
        • Negrini S
        • Chan L
        • Ferriero G
        • Frontera W
        • Heinemann A.
        Current evidence from the Randomised Controlled Trials Rehabilitation Checklist (RCTRACK) reporting guideline project.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2021; 100: 2-4
        • Meyer T
        • Selb M
        • Kiekens C
        • et al.
        Toward better reporting standards of patients’ characteristics in rehabilitation trials: applying a new conceptual framework to current standards.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 99: 216-223
        • Negrini S
        • Meyer T
        • Arienti C
        • Malmivaara A
        • Frontera WR.
        Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Meeting participants. In search of solutions for evidence generation in rehabilitation: the second Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodology Meeting.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2020; 99: 181-182