Identifying Items to Assess Methodological Quality in Physical Therapy Trials: A Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Numerous tools and individual items have been proposed to assess the methodological quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The frequency of use of these items varies according to health area, which suggests a lack of agreement regarding their relevance to trial quality or risk of bias. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were: (1) to identify the underlying component structure of items and (2) to determine relevant items to evaluate the quality and risk of bias of trials in physical therapy by using an exploratory factor analysis (EFA). DESIGN: A methodological research design was used, and an EFA was performed. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials used for this study were randomly selected from searches of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Two reviewers used 45 items gathered from 7 different quality tools to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted using the principal axis factoring (PAF) method followed by varimax rotation. RESULTS: Principal axis factoring identified 34 items loaded on 9 common factors: (1) selection bias; (2) performance and detection bias; (3) eligibility, intervention details, and description of outcome measures; (4) psychometric properties of the main outcome; (5) contamination and adherence to treatment; (6) attrition bias; (7) data analysis; (8) sample size; and (9) control and placebo adequacy. LIMITATION: Because of the exploratory nature of the results, a confirmatory factor analysis is needed to validate this model. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, this is the first factor analysis to explore the underlying component items used to evaluate the methodological quality or risk of bias of RCTs in physical therapy. The items and factors represent a starting point for evaluating the methodological quality and risk of bias in physical therapy trials. Empirical evidence of the association among these items with treatment effects and a confirmatory factor analysis of these results are needed to validate these items.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.501 | 0.663 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".