loading page

The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews
  • +2
  • Irene BATTEL,
  • Chiara Arienti,
  • William Levack,
  • Carlotte Kiekens,
  • Stefano Negrini
Irene BATTEL
University of Milan Faculty of Medicine and Surgery
Author Profile
Chiara Arienti
IRCCS FONDAZIONE DON CARLO GNOCCHI

Corresponding Author:carienti@dongnocchi.it

Author Profile
William Levack
University of Otago Wellington
Author Profile
Carlotte Kiekens
IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute
Author Profile
Stefano Negrini
IRCCS Galeazzi Orthopaedic Institute
Author Profile

Abstract

Introduction Cochrane Rehabilitation recently developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence synthesis rehabilitation studies. Objective 1. To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition, and 2. To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition. Methods: We analysed a sample of 124 randomly-selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped in the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics. Results Eight (6.5%) out of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation intervention. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the ”Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review. Discussion This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation review, but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not find important gaps in the new definition. All elements of the new definition should be considered when writing review protocols and designing strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.
Submitted to Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods
27 Mar 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
05 Jun 20241st Revision Received
05 Jun 2024Assigned to Editor
05 Jun 2024Submission Checks Completed
05 Jun 2024Review(s) Completed, Editorial Evaluation Pending
16 Aug 2024Editorial Decision: Accept