A Quantitative Analysis of Research Publications in Physical Therapy Journals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Many physical therapists depend on their professional journals for high-quality evidence. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rigor of research and review articles in 4 national physical therapy journals. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: All articles in 6 consecutive issues of the Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, Physical Therapy, Physiotherapy, and Physiotherapy Canada, published between January 2000 and June 2001 (N=179), were reviewed. One trained reviewer identified the type and purpose of each article and assessed the rigor of treatment and review articles according to explicit criteria. RESULTS: The majority of articles reviewed were original studies (56%). The majority of the research articles that dealt with human health care (66%) addressed topics that were not directly applicable to the provision of patient care such as measurement topics and studies on subjects without identified pathologies or impairments. Of the 179 journal articles, 19 met the standards for rigor (11%). The majority of these articles dealt with treatment. The pass rate per journal was as follows: Australian Journal of Physiotherapy, 10% (4/42); Physical Therapy, 15% (7/47); Physiotherapy, 12% (4/34); and Physiotherapy Canada, 7% (4/56). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Because such a small percentage of articles in these professional journals were identified as having direct application to patient care, physical therapists should attempt to access other sources of information to find additional high-quality evidence. A larger sample with a greater number of issues per journal may have yielded different results and indicated different trends, and further research appears to be warranted.
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 | 0.196 | 0.622 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.080 | 0.069 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".