Publication trends of study protocols in rehabilitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence points for the need to publish study protocols in the health field. The aim of this paper was to observe whether the growing interest in publishing study protocols in the broader health field has been translated into increased publications of rehabilitation study protocols. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed was searched with appropriate combinations of Medical Subject Headings up to December 2014. The effective presence of study protocols was manually screened. Regression models analyzed the yearly growth of publications. Two-sample Z-tests analyzed whether the proportion of systematic reviews (SRs) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among study protocols differed from that of the same designs for the broader rehabilitation research. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Up to December 2014, 746 publications of rehabilitation study protocols were identified, with an exponential growth since 2005 (r2=0.981; P<0.001). RCT protocols were the most common among rehabilitation study protocols (83%), while RCTs were significantly more prevalent among study protocols than among the broader rehabilitation research (83% vs. 35.8%; P<0.001). For SRs, the picture was reversed: significantly less common among study protocols (2.8% vs. 9.3%; P<0.001). Funding was more often reported by rehabilitation study protocols than the broader rehabilitation research (90% vs. 53.1%; P<0.001). Rehabilitation journals published a significantly lower share of rehabilitation study protocols than they did for the broader rehabilitation research (1.8% vs.16.7%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying the reasons for these discrepancies and reverting unwarranted disparities (e.g. low rate of publication for rehabilitation SR protocols) are likely new avenues for rehabilitation research and its publication. SRs, particularly those aggregating RCT results, are considered the best standard of evidence to guide rehabilitation clinical practice; however, that standard can be improved in rigor and/or transparency if the publications of rehabilitation SRs protocols become more common.
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 | 0.206 | 0.602 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.056 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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".