Cited by 911Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementation

Evidence for physiotherapy practice: A survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)

Open access
Moseley, Anne M, Herbert, Robert D, Sherrington, Catherine, Maher, Christopher G·2002·Australian Journal of Physiotherapy

Abstract

Evidence-based practice involves the use of evidence from systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials, but the extent of this evidence in physiotherapy has not previously been surveyed. The aim of this survey is to describe the quantity and quality of randomised controlled trials and the quantity of systematic reviews relevant to physiotherapy. The Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) was searched. The quality of trials was assessed with the PEDro scale. The search identified a total of 2,376 randomised controlled trials and 332 systematic reviews. The first trial was published in 1955 and the first review was published in 1982. Since that time, the number of trials and reviews has grown exponentially. The mean PEDro quality score has increased from 2.8 in trials published between 1955 and 1959 to 5.0 for trials published between 1995 and 1999. There is a substantial body of evidence about the effects of physiotherapy. However, there remains scope for improvements in the quality of the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0004-9514(14)60281-6

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moseley, A. M., Herbert, R. D., Sherrington, C., & Maher, C. G.
Affiliations
The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Moseley, Anne M
Venue
Australian Journal of Physiotherapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
43-49
ISSN
0004-9514 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2042355753
Cited by
911
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 69 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 39
FWCI
23.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Physiotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
physiotherapy, evidence-based practice, randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, trial quality, PEDro scale, trial reporting quality
MeSH terms
Australia, Clinical Trials as Topic, Humans, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Factual, Evidence-Based Medicine, Physical Therapy Modalities

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