CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchHealth Sciences Research and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Indexing of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions: a comparison of AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed

Moseley, Anne M., Sherrington, Catherine, Elkins, Mark R., Herbert, Robert D., Maher, Christopher G.·2009·Physiotherapy
DOI 10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objective To compare the comprehensiveness of indexing the reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions by eight bibliographic databases (AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed).Design Audit of bibliographic databases.Methods Two hundred and eighty-one reports of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions were identified by screening the reference lists of 30 relevant systematic reviews published in four consecutive issues of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 3, 2007 to Issue 2, 2008). AMED, CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, Hooked on Evidence, PEDro, PsycINFO and PubMed were used to search for the trial reports. The number of trial reports indexed in each database was calculated.Results PEDro indexed 99% of the trial reports, CENTRAL indexed 98%, PubMed indexed 91%, EMBASE indexed 82%, CINAHL indexed 61%, Hooked on Evidence indexed 40%, AMED indexed 36% and PsycINFO indexed 17%. Most trial reports (92%) were indexed on four or more of the databases. One trial report was indexed on a single database (PEDro).Conclusions Of the eight bibliographic databases examined, PEDro and CENTRAL provide the most comprehensive indexing of reports of randomised trials of physiotherapy interventions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Anonymous, 2001, A guide to physical therapist practice—who are physical therapists, and what do they do?, Phys Ther, 81, 39
  2. Anonymous, 2001, A guide to physical therapist practice—what types of interventions do physical therapists provide?, Phys Ther, 81, 105
  3. Anonymous, 2001, Preferred practice patterns: musculoskeletal, Phys Ther, 81, 139
  4. Anonymous, 2001, Preferred practice patterns: neuromuscular, Phys Ther, 81, 313
  5. Anonymous, 2001, Preferred practice patterns: cardiovascular/pulmonary, Phys Ther, 81, 471
  6. Anonymous, 2001, Preferred practice patterns: integumentary, Phys Ther, 81, 595

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Moseley, A. M., Sherrington, C., Elkins, M. R., Herbert, R. D., & Maher, C. G.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Moseley, Anne M.
ORCID
Venue
Physiotherapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
95
Issue
3
Pages
151-156
ISSN
0031-9406 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.physio.2009.01.006
OpenAlex
W2046371937
Cited by
82
References
23
Citations by year
2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 8
Type
paratext
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Physiotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • ACT Government
  • Australian Physiotherapy Association
  • Australian Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
bibliographic database indexing, randomized controlled trials, physiotherapy intervention, Pedro, Central, AMED, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Humans, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Physical Therapy Specialty, PubMed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review