Abstract
Purpose:
To describe and compare the type and quality of evidence published in physical therapy (PT) journals during two time periods (2000–2002 vs. 2010–2012) and to explore scientific editors' opinions on changes in the types and quality of articles.
Methods:
A quantitative, longitudinal, retrospective journal review was used to categorize and assess the methodological rigour of items published in four PT journals using the Hedges Project. A quantitative, descriptive, cross-sectional survey explored the opinions of scientific editors. Percentages and frequencies of article types (as defined by the Hedges Project criteria), items passing rigour, and editor responses were calculated. Statistical significance of differences in article type and rigour between the two time periods was determined using Fisher's Exact Test.
Results:
There was a significant increase in
original studies
and
review articles
from 2000–2002 to 2010–2012 (
p
<0.001,
p
=0.002, respectively). The
overall pass rate
for rigour was 33.3% in 2000–2002 and 42.5% in 2010–2012, showing a significant increase (
p
=0.019). The majority of editors reported an increase in systematic reviews, qualitative designs, and randomized controlled trials and believed that quality had improved by 2010–2012.
Conclusion:
From 2000–2002 to 2010–2012, the quality of articles published in PT journals improved and the proportion of
original studies
and
review articles
increased.