The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve
rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews
Abstract
Introduction Cochrane Rehabilitation recently developed a new definition
of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders,
aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary
and evidence synthesis rehabilitation studies. Objective 1. To compare
how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation
interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation
definition, and 2. To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation
definition. Methods: We analysed a sample of 124 randomly-selected CSRs
tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the
Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of
13 criteria grouped in the four PICO elements and searched for the
corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the
review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR,
resolving disagreements a third author when needed. We analysed the
findings using descriptive statistics. Results Eight (6.5%) out of 124
CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that
investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation intervention. Three
(2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the
”Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the
highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the
“Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently
reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section
of the review. Discussion This study showed that the key elements of the
new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications
identified as rehabilitation review, but not always consistently or
clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported given that
the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main
elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not find
important gaps in the new definition. All elements of the new definition
should be considered when writing review protocols and designing
strategies and tools on rehabilitation topics.