Objectives To investigate whether and when the correction is done in Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) when their included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) have been retracted. Design A meta-epidemiological study. Data sources The Retraction Watch Database. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies SRs and CPGs citing the retracted RCTs on Web of Science. Review methods We investigated how often the retracted RCTs were cited in SRs and CPGs. We also investigated whether and when such SRs and CPGs corrected themselves by visually inspecting their current web pages. We summarized the proportion of correction and the time from retraction to correction. Results We identified 98 retracted RCTs as well as 360 articles (335 SRs and 25 CPGs) citing them. Among the 360 articles, 157 (44%) were published after the retraction, 203 (56%) were published before retraction. Among 77 articles published citing already retracted RCTs in their evidence synthesis without caution, none corrected themselves after publication. Of 203 articles published before retraction, 149 included RCTs that were later retracted in their evidence synthesis. Among them, one SR was retracted due to plagiarism. Only 5% of SRs (6/130) and 11% of CPGs (2/18) corrected their results. Conclusions A large number of SRs and CPGs included already retracted RCTs without caution and never corrected themselves. When SRs and CPGs had included RCTs which were later retracted, only a small minority corrected their evidence syntheses. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs. What is already known on this topic - Systematic Reviews (SRs) and Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) aggregating randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are important sources of information for clinical decision making. - There are anecdotal reports of publications citing retracted RCTs and point to the problem of their continued citation after retraction. - However, there are no studies that comprehensively examined the fate of retracted RCTs on SRs and CPGs in their evidence synthesis. What this study adds - A considerable number of SRs and CPGs cited already retracted RCTs and none corrected themselves later. - Only a small minority of SRs (5%, 6/130) and CPGs (11%, 2/18) which cited RCTs that were later retracted corrected their findings after the retraction was announced. - The results indicate that publishers and researchers should make efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCT.

Objective: We aimed to compare the methodological quality of physical therapy–related trials published in open access with that of trials published in subscription-based journals, adjusting for subdiscipline, intervention type, endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials, impact factor, and publication language. Design: In this meta-epidemiological study, we searched the Physiotherapy Evidence Database on May 8, 2021, to include any physical therapy–related trials published from January 1, 2020. We extracted variables such as Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials endorsement, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score, and publication type. We compared the Physiotherapy Evidence Database score between the publication types using a multivariable generalized estimating equation by adjusting for covariates. Results: A total of 2743 trials were included, with a mean total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (standard deviation) of 5.8 (±1.5). Trials from open access journals had a lower total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score than those from subscription-based journals (5.5 ± 1.5 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, mean difference = −0.4; 95% confidence interval = 0.3–0.5). Generalized estimating equation revealed that open access publication was significantly associated with the total Physiotherapy Evidence Database score (mean difference = −0.42; P < 0.001). Conclusions: In the recent physical therapy–related trials, open access publications demonstrated lower methodological quality than subscription-based publications, although with a small difference.

Objectives : The aim of the study was to understand the physical therapist’s experience and perception of the support they give to their older patients or clients to continue exercising. Methods : Using purposive sampling, we recruited fifteen physical therapists with more than 5 years of clinical experience and conducted semi-structured interviews. We analyzed the transcribed data using thematic analysis. Results : Three main themes emerged: (1) the expected results as healthcare professionals, (2) clinical experience and continuing professional development, and (3) limited educational opportunities. Physical therapists struggled to achieve a certain level of exercise adherence in their patients, and the low success rate decreased their confidence. We found that physical therapists needed not only to rely on clinical experience but also to integrate scientific evidence to implement better behavioral change techniques; they would also appreciate receiving appropriate educational opportunities. Conclusions : This study revealed a possibility of educational insufficiency for physical therapist to support of behavior change to improve exercise adherence in the older population.