Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses are essential resources for the clinicians. They allow to evaluate the strengths and the weaknesses of the evidence to support clinical decision-making if they are adequately reported. Little is known in the rehabilitation field about the completeness of reporting of SRs and its relationship with the risk of bias (ROB). Primary: 1) To evaluate the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals by evaluating their adherence to the PRISMA 2009 checklist, 2) To investigate the relationship between ROB and completeness of reporting. Secondary: To study the association between completeness of reporting and journals and study characteristics. A random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011 and 2020 in 68 rehabilitation journals was indexed under the “rehabilitation” category in the InCites database. Two independent reviewers evaluated adherence to the PRISMA checklist and assessed ROB using the ROBIS tool. Overall adherence and adherence to each PRISMA item and section were calculated. Regression analyses investigated the association between completeness of reporting, ROB, and other characteristics (impact factor, publication options, publication year, and study protocol registration). The mean overall PRISMA adherence across the 200 studies considered was 61.4%. Regression analyses show that having a high overall ROB is a significant predictor of lower adherence (B=-7.1%; 95%CI -12.1, -2.0). Studies published in fourth quartile journals displayed a lower overall adherence (B= -7.2%; 95%CI -13.2, -1.3) than those published in first quartile journals; the overall adherence increased (B= 11.9%; 95%CI 5.9, 18.0) if the SR protocol was registered. No association between adherence, publication options, and publication year was found. Reporting completeness in rehabilitation SRs is suboptimal and is associated with ROB, impact factor, and study registration. Authors of SRs should improve adherence to the PRISMA guideline, and journal editors should implement strategies to optimize the completeness of reporting.

The aim of this article was to investigate the knowledge, management, and clinical practice of Italian physiotherapists concerning patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS). A national cross-sectional survey consisted of 24 questions was administered from December 2019 until February 2020. A Chi-squared independence test was run to study any difference between subgroups of the sample and responses to the questionnaire. Five hundred and eight respondents completed the survey. Most respondents (n = 225/508; 44.3%) are under 29 years old, female (n = 256/508; 50.4%) and have been working as physiotherapists for less than 5 years (n = 213/508; 41.9%). Most of respondents correctly knows about the cause (n = 455/508, 89.6%), main signs and symptoms of CTS (n = 415/508, 81.70%) and administer education, manual therapy, myofascial techniques and therapeutic exercises (n = 457/508, 89.88%). Three hundred and sixty-four (71.68%) respondents were aware of the influence of psychosocial factors on the patient’s outcomes. The survey showed greater adherence to evidences by physiotherapists holding a master’s degree. The results are mostly comparable with other surveys structured all over the world on the same topic. Italian physiotherapists management of the CTS was not always in line with current evidence. Interventions such as education, manual therapy, therapeutic exercise, nerve and tendon glide techniques are widely used, while the orthotic is only offered by half of the sample.

Background: Scar impairments impose a significant economic burden and negatively impact an individual’s well-being and quality of life. However, there is a lack of standardization in physical therapy interventions for scar management. Objective: This study aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of studies addressing non-invasive physical therapy interventions for scar management. Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Six databases were searched, and additional studies were retrieved through gray literature and the reference lists of included articles. All studies considering non-invasive physical therapy interventions for scar management were included. No restrictions were applied regarding time, context or publication type. Results were illustrated using descriptive statistics and summarized in an infographic. Results: Out of 13,419 initial records, 92 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most articles were narrative reviews (n = 41) followed by randomized controlled trials (RCT) (n = 18). The most reported interventions were pressure therapy (n = 41), physical therapy modalities (n = 37), silicone-based products (n = 29) and massage (n = 20). Conclusions: Scar management involves a wide range of physical interventions. However, research has predominantly focused on adults, particularly those with burns, with limited attention given to pediatric or non-adult populations. Furthermore, there is significant variability in the application parameters, scar localization and size. Examining the included study designs, most of the research presented reduced sample sizes and lacked control groups. Notably, almost half of the studies were based on expert opinions. Future high-quality research is needed to identify evidence-based interventions for the clinical management of scars.

Objective The aim of this study will be to assess the adherence to the reporting quality standards set forth in the CONSORT Statement checklist of a random sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in rehabilitation journals, and to assess the association between this adherence and the risk of bias of these RCTs. Methods and Analysis A cross-sectional analysis is planned on a random sample of 200 RCTs published between 2011and 2020 in the 68 journals indexed under “rehabilitation” category in InCites Journal Citation Report. Randomization will be stratified by publication date and journal ranking (quartile range; Q1-2 and Q3-4) to include an equal number of studies from 2011 to 2015 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50) and from 2016 to 2020 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50). RCT with parallel group design will be included. Observational or cohort studies, interim analyses, economic analyses of RCTs, RCT protocols, quasi-experimental design post-trial follow-up studies, subgroup and secondary analyses of previously reported RCTs, RCT with cross-over design, pilot feasibility RCTs, n-of-1 trials, cluster trials, editorials, letters and news reports will be excluded. The primary analysis will address the completeness of the reporting for each study and the relationship between CONSORT adherence and risk of bias. This will be a descriptive analysis through descriptive statistics and graphical representation. Ethics and Dissemination Several studies have shown the positive influence of reporting guidelines on the completeness of research reporting but no one investigated the use and the appropriateness of reporting guidelines in physical therapy research. Therefore, this study will add relevant knowledge that may contribute to improve further the reporting of rehabilitation research. The results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at relevant (inter)national scientific events.

Background Scar impairments impose a great economic burden and influence a subject’s well-being and quality of life. Despite that, physiotherapy interventions are poorly investigated. Objective of the study Provide a comprehensive overview of studies addressing physiotherapy and conservative non-invasive interventions for skin scar management, summarizing studies based on scar type, localization, patient’s characteristics (e.g., age), safety and tolerance of physical interventions. The realization of an infographic will assist clinicians and patients with scars’ management. Moreover, any knowledge gaps will be identified. Methods The review will be conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. MEDLINE Central, PEDro, Embase, Cochrane Library and Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and CINAHL and grey literature (e.g., Google Scholar) will be searched for studies considering physical therapy interventions in scars management. Every study considering conservative non-invasive physiotherapy interventions for scar management will be included. This review will look at studies carried out in any context. Articles written in English or Italian will be considered. No temporal or publication type restrictions will be placed. Selection and extraction of data will be done by three reviewers independently, any discrepancies will be resolved by a fourth reviewer. The results will be illustrated using descriptive statistics and summarized in an infographic. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval will be necessary.