Go back to JRM-CC

Review article

Prevalence of review studies published in rehabilitation journals during the last decade

Mikhail Saltychev, Katri Laimi
Department of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine, Turku University Hospital and University of Turku, PO Box 52  FIN-20521 Turku  Finland. E-mail: mikhail,saltychev@gmail.com

DOI: 10.2340/20030711-1000011

Abstract

Objective: To compare the number of review papers published in rehabilitation journals during recent years with the number published a decade ago.
Methods: PubMed search for review papers publi-shed in 7 major rehabilitation journals in 2005–2007 and 2015–2017.
Results: Of the 940 review papers identified, 659 were published in 2015–2017, and 281 in 2005–2007. Two journals: Disability and Rehabilitation and Archives of PM&R published over half of all the reviews. Over the last decade, the design of reviews has changed substantially, with an increase in the number of meta-analyses (from 2.5% in 2005 to 44% in 2017) and in the number of reviews conducted solely on randomized controlled studies (from 6% in 2005 to 32% in 2017).
Conclusion: PRM training schemes must adjust to the change in published research to enable understanding and interpretation of the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and quantitative analyses.

Lay Abstract

To compare the number of review papers published in rehabilitation journals during recent years with the number published a decade ago. A PubMed search was performed for review papers published in 7 major rehabilitation journals in 2005–2007 and 2015–2017. Of the 940 papers identified, 659 were published in 2015–2017, and 281 in 2005–2007. Two journals: Disability and Rehabilitation and Archives of PM&R published over half of all the reviews. During the last decade, the design of reviews has changed substantially, with an increase in the number of meta-analyses (from 2.5% in 2005 to 44% in 2017) and in the number of reviews conducted solely on randomized controlled studies (from 6% in 2005 to 32% in 2017). PRM training schemes must adjust to the change in published research to enable understanding and interpretation of the results and conclusions of systematic reviews and quantitative analyses.

Comments

Do you want to comment on this paper? The comments will show up here and if appropriate the comments will also separately be forwarded to the authors. You need to login/create an account to comment on articles. Click here to login/create an account.
Advertisement